No replies to this topic

[Neon]

The European Commission made "fundamental errors" in its 2004 ruling that Microsoft broke competition law, the firm has told a top European court. Microsoft made the claim at the start of its appeal against the ruling. The verdict could have a major impact on future European anti-trust rulings.

Brussels fined the US giant 497m euros ($613m; £344m) in 2004 and told it to open up its software to its rivals. Microsoft says it acted legally and the judgement should be overturned.

The appeal is being heard over five days by the 13 judges of the Grand Chamber of the European Union's Court of First Instance in Luxembourg. If Microsoft wins the appeal it would mark a drastic blow for competition regulations at the European Commission in Brussels.

'Flawed'

Q&A: Microsoft's appeal

In his opening statement, Microsoft lawyer Jean-Francois Bellis said that the Commission's findings had been "flawed at every step".

Mr Bellis argued that the Commission was wrong to demand in the 2004 judgement that Microsoft unbundle its own media or audio-visual player from its Windows operating system.

He and his experts said that far from stifling similar systems from rival firms, competition in the media player market was thriving - pointing to the success of Apple's iTunes to back up their claims.

Furthermore, Mr Bellis argued that the Commission's decision to force Microsoft to offer a version of Windows without any media player system - known as XPN - had failed.

"As of today no PC maker has shipped a version of XPN ... not a single one," he told the 13 judges hearing the case.

'Competition eliminated'

But Commission lawyer Per Hellstrom said Microsoft's arguments were irrelevant because consumers did not have real freedom of choice over the media software they are offered. "Microsoft's pleas must be ignored," he told the court.

"This is the world according to Microsoft where it decides what is best for consumers." A group representing some of Microsoft's rivals - The European Committee for Interoperable Systems (ECIS) - backed the Commission's position at the appeal hearing.

"If Microsoft were to compete on the merits of its own products, that would be perfectly fine and everyone would be happy with that," said Thomas Vinje, a lawyer for the ECIS. "Microsoft does not compete on the merits. Microsoft doesn't let users choose ... it chooses itself what users will have as product."

The appeal will be heard over five days, but a decision is not expected to be delivered until the end of this year at the earliest.