A matter of sovereignty: What the European Court’s ruling means for the technology industry1
[1] “YOU asked for it, now live with it.” That was, in esnce, the message spread by Microsoft’s lobbyists after the European Court of First Instance① upheld a landmark antitrust ruling against the world’s largest software firm on September 17th, dealing it the most stinging defeat in nearly a decade of antitrust litigation. Emboldened by this decision, Europe’s anti-monopoly squad will now go after other technology firms with high market shares, the lobbyists warn, forcing them to give up valuable int
ellectual property and curbing the incentive to innovate. Yet it is unlikely that Neelie Kroes②, the European Union (EU) competition commissioner, will now “be leading a prison march of the world’s most successful firms through her Brusls doors”, as one lobbyist put it. The judgment’s conquences are far-reaching, but in a different way. If it is not overturned—as The Economist went to press, Microsoft had not said whether it would make a final appeal—the firm will, in effect, lo much of its sovereignty over the virtual territory staked out by its Windows operating system.
[2] Microsoft ended up in the dock in both Europe and America becau it tried to protect and extend its Windows monopoly in two ways. One was by bundling other types of software along with Windows, notably its web browr, a move that triggered the antitrust action in America. Its other approach, which lay at the heart of the European ca, was to withhold information from rivals that would have allowed their software to “interoperate” well with Windows over a network.
[3] With a new Republican president in power, America’s competition authorities decided in 2002 not to pursue the ca championed by the Clinton White Hou and
1This text is adapted from: /iw-
arch/we/InfoWeb?p_product=AWNB&p_theme=aggregated5&p_action=doc&p_docid=11BD087C
EF7A28D8 &p_docnum=1&p_queryname=2
instead negotiated a ttlement with Microsoft. This “connt decree”③, large parts of which will expire in November, amounted to little more than a slap on the wrist. It failed to administer any penalty and let Microsoft add new software elements to Windows so long as PC-makers were allowed to add rival products too. The provision regarding interoperability was also limited: the requirement to provide the necessary “communication protocols” applied only to the version of Windows that runs on individual PCs, and not the one running on the rvers that dish up data on corporate networks.
[4] The European Commission’s initial ruling against Microsoft in 2004 can be en as an attempt to address the shortcomings. The commission ordered Microsoft to ll a version of Windows without its media player software, the bone of contention in Europe when it comes to bundling. It ruled that the firm had to provide information on how to interoperate with Windows rvers. The commission also impod a fine of €497m ($613m), which has since grown to €777m ($990m) becau it determined that Microsoft was not fully complying with its decision.
[5] The European court has now upheld the remedies. Even more importantly, it largely endord t
he commission’s legal reasoning. It argued, for instance, that withholding information that is needed for PCs and rvers to work together constitutes an abu of a dominant position if it keeps others from developing rival software for which there is potential consumer demand. In such cas, the information cannot be refud even if it is protected by intellectual-property rights, as Microsoft had argued.
[6] With its ruling, the court has t a precedent that means Windows is no longer simply private property with which Microsoft can do as it pleas. And this will certainly apply to any other firm that manages to build a similarly crucial and long-lasting digital monopoly. Even today, with software increasingly delivered as a rvice over the internet, Windows is protected by something known as the “application barrier to entry”, meaning that so many programs run on it that rivals have a hard time getting urs and software developers to switch.
[7] Yet, whatever the lobbyists say, European regulators are unlikely to go after every technology firm with a big market share. There are not many similarly dominant
computer platforms. What is more, most of the potential investigations that may follow are different in kind from the action against Microsoft. In the ca of Qualcomm, for instance, competitors have com
plained that it is charging excessive royalties for its patents on mobile-phone technologies. In the ca of Apple, commission officials have already said that they are wary of proposals to force the firm to open iTunes, its online music store, to music-players other than its iPod; a parate investigation into iTunes concerns variations in pricing between European countries, rather than technological lock-in. Even the continuing investigation of Intel is not directly comparable to the Microsoft ca. The world’s biggest chipmaker, the commission charges, has ud abusive tactics such as offering rebates to prevent computer-makers from using chips made by its rival, AMD.
[8] For the time being, the commission can apply the precedents t by the Microsoft ruling in only one ca: Google, the world’s leading web-arch and online-advertising firm. Just as America’s Federal Trade Commission is now doing, the EU’s competition authorities will look cloly at Google’s planned takeover of DoubleClick, another leader in online advertising. And if Google becomes a central storage vault for data such as urs’ location and identity, as some fear, European regulators may one day try to compel the firm to give rivals open access to this information—rather as they have now forced Microsoft to relea its communication protocols. Microsoft itlf is not out of legal trouble, even if it choos not to appeal. The commission has yet to determine whether the information the firm has supplied will really ensure interoperability. Still open,
too, is the issue of how much Microsoft can charge firms that want to licen its protocols. Then there is the question of whether Microsoft should be forced to licen the information to makers of open-source software. The firm argues that this would be tantamount to giving away the shop, but the commission thinks it would promote competition by advancing open-source rivals to Microsoft’s products. And further investigations may yet follow into Office, Microsoft’s dominant suite of business software, and Vista, the latest version of Windows.
[9] No wonder Microsoft is stoking fears that the commission plans to go on an antitrust rampage. It has prompted a political backlash that may discourage the EU from staying on the ca. In America the talk is of a “new form of protectionism”. After the European court’s decision Thomas Barnett, the head of the antitrust division of the
Department of Justice, warned that it “may have the unfortunate conquence of harming consumers by chilling innovation and discouraging competition”.
[10] With this judgment Europe and America have clearly moved further apart in antitrust matters. But whether, as some fear, the differences turn into a full-blown transatlantic conflict remains to be en.
应纳税额计算公式
[11] After all, the administration in Washington will probably have changed veral more times before the Microsoft ca finally draws to a clo.
(Total words: 1165)
Notes to the Text:
27的英文①European Court of First Instance: It is a constituent court of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Court of First Instance is made up of at least one judge from 28 Member States. European Court of First Instance deals with actions taken against the institutions of the European Union by individuals and member states. Decisions of the General Court can be appealed to the Court of Justice. After the coming into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December 2009, it was known as The General Court (EGC).
fob和cif的区别
② Neelie Kroes: Born in 1941, Neelie Kroes joined the Commission in 2004 as the European Commissioner for Competition, and then for the digital agenda until 31 October 2014. One of her first tasks in 2004 was to overe the sanctions against Microsoft by the European Commission, known as the European Union Microsoft competition ca.
小杜鹃
③ Connt Decree: It is a ttlement of a lawsuit or criminal ca in which a person or company agrees to take specific actions without admitting fault or guilt for the situation that led to the lawsuit.
New Words and Expressions
lobbyist /ˈlɒbiɪst/ n. a person who try to influence a politician or the government and, for example, persuade them to support or oppo a change in the law（政治）说客antitrust /ˌæntiˈtrʌst/ a. [only before noun] (of laws) preventing companies or groups of companies from controlling prices unfairly反垄断的
deal (sth) (to sb) v. to give cards to each player in a game of cards递给incentive /ɪnˈntɪv/ n.something that encourages you to do sth激励；刺激；鼓励appeal /əˈpiːl/ n. a formal request to a court or to sb in authority for a judgment or a
decision to be changed 上诉；申诉
stake /steɪk/ v. stake (out) a/ your claim (to/for/on sth) (idiom) to say or show publicly that you think sth should be yours 公开宣布自己（对某物）的所有权；向公众表示某物应属于自己
dock /dɒk/ n. the part of a court where the person who has been accud of a crime stands or sits du
ring a trial移动支付的利弊
monopoly /məˈnɒpəli/ n. (business) the complete control of trade in particular goods or the supply of a particular rvice; a type of goods or a rvice that is controlled in this way垄断；专营服务；被垄断的商品（或服务）
interoperable /ˌɪntərˈɒpərəbl/ a. (technical) (of computer systems or programs) able to exchange information（计算机系统或程序之间）可交换信息的；可兼容的interoperate v.兼容
decree /dɪˈkriː/ n. a decision that is made in court（法院的）裁定；判决protocol/ˈprəʊtəkɒl/ n. (computing) a t of rules that control the way data is nt between computer［计算机］（数据传递的）协议
dish up v. to rve food onto plates for a meal 递上（食物），上菜
contention /kənˈtɛnʃn/ n. contention (that … ) a belief or an opinion that you express, especially in an argument （尤指争论时的）看法，观点
comply /kəmˈplaɪ/ v. comply (with sth) to obey a rule, an order, etc. 遵从；服从；顺从
endor /ɪnˈdɔːs/ v. to say publicly that you support a person, statement or cour of action（公开的）赞同；支持；认可
withhold /wɪðˈhəʊld/ a. (formal) to refu to give sth to sb拒绝给；不给precedent /ˈpresɪdənt/ n. an official action or decision that has happened in the past and that is en as an example or a rule to be followed in a similar situation later 可援用参考的具体例子；事例；范例
royalty /ˈrɔɪəlti/ v. a sum of money that is paid to sb who has written a book, piece of music, etc. each time that it is sold or performed 版税
rebate /ˈriːbeɪt/ n. an amount of money that is taken away from the cost of sth, before you pay for it 返还（退还部分货价）；折扣
vault /vɔːlt/ n. a room with thick walls and a strong door, especially in a bank, ud for keeping valuable things safe （尤指银行的）金库；保险库
民谚tantamount /ˈtæntəmaʊnt/ v. tantamount to sth (formal) having the same bad effect as sth el 无异于；等于；效果与…一样坏
stoke /stəʊk/ v. to cau something to increa 煽动；添加
rampage /ˈræmpeɪdʒ/ n. a sudden period of wild and violent behavior, often causing damage and destruction 横冲直撞；狂暴行为凯隐背景故事
backlash/ˈbæklæʃ/ n.a strong negative reaction by a large number of people, for
>犹如的反义词
