IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ste/nystbu/10-09.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Critical Appraisal of Remedies in the EU Microsoft Cases

Author

Listed:
  • Nicholas Economides
  • Ioannis Lianos

Abstract

We discuss and compare the remedies in the two cases antitrust cases of the European Union (EU) against Microsoft. The first EU case alleged (i) that Microsoft illegally bundled the Windows Media Player (WMP) with Windows; and (ii) that Microsoft did not provide adequate documentation that would allow full interoperability between Windows servers and non-Microsoft servers as well as between Windows clients and non-Microsoft servers. After finding Microsoft liable and imposing a large fine, the EU imposed as remedies the requirements on Microsoft (i) to sell a version of Windows without WMP (Windows-N); and (ii) to publish and license interoperability information. Windows-N was a commercial failure, and there has been only limited cross-platform server entry. In its second investigation of Microsoft, the EU alleged illegal tying of Internet Explorer (IE) with Windows. The EU settled with Microsoft with Microsoft undertaking the obligation to ask (through compulsory Windows updates) consumers whose computers have Internet Explorer pre-installed to choose a browser from a menu of competing browsers. Thus, the EU imposed quite different remedies in the two cases: an unbundling remedy for the WMP but a close to a must-carry requirement for IE. We analyze and compare the different approaches.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Nicholas Economides & Ioannis Lianos, 2010. "A Critical Appraisal of Remedies in the EU Microsoft Cases," Working Papers 10-09, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ste:nystbu:10-09
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.stern.nyu.edu/networks/Economides_Lianos_Critical_Appraisal_Microsoft_Remedies.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lianos, I. & Motchenkova, E., 2012. "Market dominance and quality of search results in the search engine market," Discussion Paper 2012-036, Tilburg University, Tilburg Law and Economic Center.
    2. Parsheera, Smriti & Shah, Ajay & Bose, Avirup, 2017. "Competition Issues in India's Online Economy," Working Papers 17/194, National Institute of Public Finance and Policy.
    3. Prasanth Regy & Shubho Roy, 2017. "Understanding Judicial Delays in Debt Tribunals," Working Papers id:11771, eSocialSciences.
    4. Stephen Jarman & Deniz D. Karaman Örsal, 2020. "The regulation of zero-price markets by the competition authorities in the USA and the EU," Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, , vol. 21(4), pages 315-343, December.
    5. Decarolis, Francesco & Li, Muxin, 2023. "Regulating online search in the EU: From the android case to the digital markets act and digital services act," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
    • L41 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Monopolization; Horizontal Anticompetitive Practices
    • L42 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Vertical Restraints; Resale Price Maintenance; Quantity Discounts
    • L12 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies
    • L86 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Information and Internet Services; Computer Software
    • L63 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - Microelectronics; Computers; Communications Equipment

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ste:nystbu:10-09. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Amanda Murphy (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ednyuus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.