Case Comp/C-3/37.792 Microsoft

2007 O.J. (L 32) 23 (2004)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Case Comp/C-3/37.792 Microsoft

Commission of the European Communities
2007 O.J. (L 32) 23 (2004)

KL

Facts

In 1998, Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft) (defendant), the dominant firm in the personal computer (PC) operating-systems market, was preparing to release a new server operating system for Windows 2000. Servers are multiuse computers that link with PCs to form networks. Sun Microsystems (Sun), a competitor and server manufacturer, asked Microsoft for information that would allow Sun to create interoperability (i.e., compatibility) between its existing server operating system and Microsoft’s new operating system. Microsoft had previously licensed compatibility information to competitors, and Sun’s current servers were therefore interoperable with Microsoft’s. This meant that customers could and did use Microsoft PCs with servers made by Sun and others. However, Microsoft denied Sun’s request, meaning that servers manufactured by Sun and other competitors would no longer work with Microsoft’s new systems, rendering those products obsolete as to Windows 2000 users. Microsoft’s marketing tactics relating to its new server made clear to customers that other companies’ products were not compatible. Customers began migrating away from Microsoft’s competitors in favor of Microsoft’s new server, even though some competitors’ products were rated higher than Microsoft’s. As a result, Microsoft quickly grew its share of the server market, gaining dominance. Sun asked the Commission of the European Communities (the commission) (plaintiff) to commence proceedings against Microsoft for violating Article 82 of the European Commission Treaty, which prohibited an abuse of a dominant market position. In response, Microsoft argued that it had no incentive to leverage its dominance in the PC market to foreclose competition in the server market and that its intellectual property should be protected from disclosure. After an investigation, the commission issued a decision.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning ()

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership