By Declan McCullagh, 25 March 2004 09:15
NEWS US politicians have lashed out at the European Union's decision to seek sanctions against Microsoft, asking regulators in Brussels to reconsider their decision to levy an unprecedented fine of €497m.
In a letter to European Competition Commissioner Mario Monti, 10 members of the House International Relations committee said the federal litigation against Microsoft had resolved outstanding antitrust problems and jointly cautioned that it was of the "utmost importance" that the US continue to take the lead in overseeing American companies' business practices.
The letter, signed by five Democrats and five Republicans, noted that "this case involves a US company, that the complaining parties in the EU were primarily US companies and that all of the relevant design decisions occurred in the United States."
A 2002 settlement that arose out of the US Justice Department's antitrust pursuit of Microsoft "established a comprehensive regulatory scheme that not only resolved past conduct, but also created a detailed compliance structure to address future competitive concerns that might arise," the letter said. "This regulatory scheme insures that Microsoft can continue to add new features into its products but allows both users and computer manufacturers to hide these additional features and use competing products instead."
On Wednesday, the European Union ruled that Microsoft had failed to provide to rivals information they needed to compete fairly in the market and that the company has been offering Windows on the condition that it come bundled with Windows Media Player, stifling competition. The penalties levied include a requirement that Microsoft not give computer manufacturers discounts based on buying Windows along with Microsoft's Windows Media player.
The House members pointed to a 1991 antitrust cooperation agreement, which the Clinton administration renewed in 1998. "We hope that the outcome of the commission's investigation does not devalue the US Department of Justice's prior settlement with Microsoft and that it respects the principles of international cooperation set forth the in comity agreement," the letter said.
While strongly worded by normal political standards, the letter itself did not explicitly ask that Europe back down. But in an accompanying statement, politicians Robert Wexler and Peter King, went further in their criticism. "It is imperative that we maintain America's competitiveness," King said. "Today's ruling undermines the US.-EU comity agreement and will deter US companies from participating in European markets. The EU should reconsider its ruling."
This is not the first time that the US and the Europeans have clashed over antitrust enforcement. Hostilities erupted after the European Union vetoed the proposed GE-Honeywell merger, which US regulators had already approved. President George W Bush publicly criticised that decision, which was widely viewed as a protectionist move designed to help European competitors such as Airbus and Lufthansa at the expense of US firms.
In addition, US officials sometimes view Europeans as unabashed fans of big government. In November 2001, William Kolasky, deputy assistant attorney general at the time, complained in a speech that the "European Union comes from a more statist tradition that places greater confidence in the utility of governmental intervention in markets".
Declan McCullagh writes for CNET News.com

Comments
There are 17 comments. Join the discussion
1. bob frost
I am in total agreement with the comments of the us politicians
the eu should put their own house in order first
fight this stupidity all the way Bill
2. anonymous
Yeah right, they've done a stirling job so far - Enron, Andersen, Tyco, Worldcom...
I'll leave it there for now, gotta go find a 'lost teabag'.
;o)
3. anonymous
This is a very interesting article. First I would like to say that how a company acts in a foreign country is up to the laws of a foreign country. Second thing is that the EU is not technically a country. At best it is a group of countries with a Collusionist agenda to be anti-american.
Even though the EU is decidedly anti-american, I have no Pity for Microsoft. They purposely design windows to not be object oriented enough to have a clear and distinct separation of the individual windows operating systems components. They designed their OS like this on purpose just so they can say it can not be separated and they deserver every criticism and fine the EU decides. If the US Department of Justice was sinceer about justice, the US courts should have come up with similar judgements. However, the US legal system cares more about money than the Law and the average citizen's rights.
A third major issue is the concept of because Microsoft and the other countries are american that they can not litigate in a foreign country. I do not agree with this. Microsoft has been bringing charges against other companies in other countries when it can not get a favorable judgement against them in the USA. Take the Lindows operating system as an example.
The United States Legal system should have forced Microsoft to split up their operating system from their browser and also from their media player in the last big court battle with Microsoft, but the legal system in the US is not interested of protecting people's rights in America.
4. Steve
This is about Microsofts attempts to dominate the server market by tying the desktop ever closer to it, not just about media player itself. The EU should be praised for taking an appropriate stand on this.
Microsoft should not be allowed to put itself in the position of monopolist for the forthcoming massive growth of media services, because of its monopolisation of the desktop.
5. anonymous
This is a very interesting point......
The points you raise are only your opinion and have not really been backed up by facts that can be referred to. Now because of this I cannot disagree or agree with any of your points.
If the EU has passed its judgement on MS, who do have the right to challenge this. The rest is really non of anyone business except for the EU and MS. We all have very strong views on this and many people are passionate about this subject, but it IS only your views, and nothing more than this.
If you feel that you have been wronged by the EU the please show your hand and raise your voice and be factually heard. Otherwise this post that I am writing and all other post are little more than a lot of people rambling on without any real basis for discussion.
6. Keith
Microsoft went after Lindows in the EU because it didn't like that the US courts said. I love how hypocritical they are!
7. Reader
EU fines US company which gives out extra stuff for free to EU citizens because they think it hurt another US company? How stupid is that?
8. anonymous
It is all about Windows networking. Microsoft purposely makes it hard for other companies to let their products interface with Microsoft's SMB networking protocol.
This ruling forces Microsoft to enable competitors to make use of the SMB-protocol in server products in the same way that Microsoft does.
I think the EC has a very good understanding of the matter. The decision is worth reading. The EC has taken the right steps to ensure competition on server operating systems remains possible.
European and American competitors both benefit from the decision. In my opinion it has nothing to do with anti-americanism.
9. anonymous
If Microsoft want to deal in Europe then follow the rules. If they don't want to follow the rules then stop selling in EU. As for the US politicians, last time I looked the EU wasn't part of the US. So what do they have to do with the price of cheese?
10. Mike Barnes
I'm just waiting for them to unbundle Notepad and Calculator.
11. anonymous
Perhaps Microsoft should fund election campaigns here so the EU would become less "Anti Microsoft" and thus "Anti US"...
12. anonymous
What C**P ! They may be American companies but the customers are us - europeans, and if we dont like a monopolist using his monopolist advantage to disadvantage our businesses then the EU is fully justified in its actions.
13. anonymous
Interesting stance when compared to the US desire to impose Sarbanes-Oxley requirements on companies in other countries, including imposing fines on them.
14. anonymous
Interesting stance when compared to the US desire to impose Sarbanes-Oxley requirements on companies in other countries, including imposing fines on them.
15. vince
stfu all you anti US, MS.
If you don't like it then move to another country and stop using MS software you pirated.
16. Daniel Johns
Who would choose to use Realmedia rubbish over Media Player anyway ? even not being a great Microsoft fan given this option what fool would take it ?
17. anonymous
We must all understand that we are in the middle of commercial war - The Americans understand this - We MUST fight our corner TODAY, or suffer the future consequenses in jobs, pay, standard of living etc. (The ABILITY, not the right, to determine our own future is what is at stake here) - For once, well done the EU :-)