computer science

Microsoft Corp. v European Commission

Microsoft Corp. v European Commission is a computer science topic covered in the lgStudy science library. This page brings together a partial reference excerpt, illustrations, worked examples, real-world applications and a short study plan, so you can understand Microsoft Corp. v European Commission rather than just read about it. In short: Microsoft Corp. v Commission of the European Communities (2007; T-201/04) is a case brought by the European Commission of the European Union (EU) against Microsoft for abuse of its dominant position in the market (according to competition law). It started as a complaint from Sun Microsystems over Microsoft's licensing practices in 1993, and eventually resulted in the EU ordering Microsoft to divulge certain informat…

Key takeaways

Microsoft Corp. v European Commission belongs to computer science; place it in that map before memorising details.
Learn the definition first, then one example that makes the definition concrete.
Connect Microsoft Corp. v European Commission to a quantity you can measure, compute or draw — that is where exam questions come from.
Reproduce the core statement of Microsoft Corp. v European Commission from memory before moving on to harder problems.

Reference excerpt

Microsoft Corp. v Commission of the European Communities (2007; T-201/04) is a case brought by the European Commission of the European Union (EU) against Microsoft for abuse of its dominant position in the market (according to competition law). It started as a complaint from Sun Microsystems over Microsoft's licensing practices in 1993, and eventually resulted in the EU ordering Microsoft to divulge certain information about its server products and release a version of Microsoft Windows without Windows Media Player. The European Commission especially focused on the interoperability issue.

Facts In 1993, the American software company Novell claimed that Microsoft was blocking its competitors out of the market through anti-competitive practices. The complaint centered on the license practices at the time which required royalties from each computer sold by a supplier of Microsoft's operating system, whether or not the unit actually contained the Windows operating system. Microsoft reached a settlement in 1994, ending some of its license practices, specifically "charging royalties on a 'per processor' basis", which allowed Microsoft to be paid without providing a product and caused systems bundling other software (such as Novell's DOS 7.0) to be more expensive due to the alternative system software incurring an extra cost on top of the Microsoft licensing fee. Additionally, Microsoft agreed to stop requiring that software developers sign non-disclosure agreements preventing them from developing applications simultaneously for Microsoft and non-Microsoft platforms. In 1998, Sun Microsystems raised a complaint about the lack of disclosure of some of the interfaces to Windows NT. The case widened when the EU examined how streaming media technologies were integrated with Windows.

Judgment Citing ongoing abuse by Microsoft, the EU reached a preliminary decision in the case in 2003 and ordered the company to offer both a version of Windows without Windows Media Player and the information necessary for competing networking software to interact fully with Windows desktops and servers. In March 2004, the EU ordered Microsoft to pay €497 million ($794 million or £381 million), the largest fine ever handed out by the EU at the time, in addition to the previous penalties, which included 120 days to divulge the server information and 90 days to produce a version of Windows without Windows Media Player. The next month Microsoft released a paper containing scathing commentary on the ruling including: "The commission is seeking to make new law that will have an adverse impact on intellectual property rights and the ability of dominant firms to innovate." Microsoft paid the fine in full in July 2004. In 2004, Neelie Kroes was appointed the European Commissioner for Competition; one of her first tasks was to oversee the fining brought onto Microsoft. Kroes has stated she believes open standards and open source are preferable to anything proprietary:

The Commission must do its part ... It must not rely on one vendor, it must not accept closed standards, and it must refuse to become locked into a particular technology – jeopardizing maintenance of full control over the information in its possession

Significance

Microsoft has a compliant version of its flagship operating system without Windows Media Player available under the negotiated name "Windows XP N". In response to the server information requirement, Microsoft released the source code, but not the specifications, to Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 (SP1) to members of its Work Group Server Protocol Program (WSPP) on the day of the original deadline. Microsoft also appealed the case, and the EU had a week-long hearing over it. Neelie Kroes stated:

… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.

Illustrations

Worked examples

Example 1 — a first encounter with Microsoft Corp. v European Commission

Start with the simplest possible case. Write down what Microsoft Corp. v European Commission claims or describes in one sentence, then invent the smallest concrete situation in which that sentence is true. In computer science, the smallest case is usually a single object, a single equation or a single measurement. Check that every symbol or term in your sentence has a meaning in that case.

Example 2 — changing one variable

Take the situation from Example 1 and change exactly one quantity: double it, halve it, or set it to zero. Predict what should happen to Microsoft Corp. v European Commission before you calculate. Comparing your prediction with the result is the fastest way to find out whether you understand the idea or only the words.

Example 3 — an exam-style question

Typical questions about Microsoft Corp. v European Commission ask you to (a) state it precisely, (b) apply it to given data, and (c) explain a limitation. Practise writing all three answers in under five minutes; the third part is what separates a full-mark answer from an average one.

Applications of Microsoft Corp. v European Commission

In research: Microsoft Corp. v European Commission appears in computer science research whenever the underlying quantities have to be modelled precisely. Papers usually cite it as a starting assumption and then explore where it breaks down.
In technology and industry: Engineering practice reuses Microsoft Corp. v European Commission in design rules, simulations and safety margins. Knowing the idea lets you read a specification sheet and understand why the numbers look the way they do.
In the classroom: Microsoft Corp. v European Commission is common in secondary-school and first-year university syllabi. It links to neighbouring topics 2007 in European Union case law, Computing-related controversies, Court of Justice of the European Union case law, so understanding it makes those chapters shorter.
In everyday life: Look for Microsoft Corp. v European Commission outside the textbook — in sport, cooking, traffic, electronics or the sky above you. An example you found yourself is remembered far longer than one you were given.

Affiliate

Preply — study more efficiently by working with a personal tutor. 50% off.

How to study Microsoft Corp. v European Commission in 20 minutes

Read the reference excerpt below once, without taking notes.
Close the page and write down what Microsoft Corp. v European Commission means in your own words.
Compare your version with the excerpt and mark what you missed.
Work through the three examples above with pen and paper.
Explain Microsoft Corp. v European Commission out loud to somebody else — or to Teacher Smith in the lgStudy chat.

Frequently asked questions

What is Microsoft Corp. v European Commission in simple terms?

Why does Microsoft Corp. v European Commission matter?

Because it connects several computer science ideas at once: it gives you a definition you can apply, a quantity you can calculate, and a way to check whether a result is plausible.

How should I study Microsoft Corp. v European Commission?

Read the excerpt, restate it from memory, then work through the examples and applications listed on this page. The five-step study plan above takes about twenty minutes.

What does this page cover?

It gives you a compact reference excerpt plus original lgStudy explanations, examples, applications and study material on Microsoft Corp. v European Commission.