Commentary of the EU Microsoft Antitrust
Case
Stern
email: economides@stern.nyu.edu
NET Institute (www.NETInst.org)
Visiting UC Berkeley/Haas
On
On media players, the
Commission forced Microsoft to sell in
Is the EU requirement likely
to make a difference? The marketplace
said no. And, while the EU battled
Microsoft on media players for nine (!) years at the behest of Real Networks,
Adobe’s Flash emerged as the dominant PC video player and Apple grabbed the
lion’s share in the online song download market with a proprietary format. The Commission’s indirect “indirect network
effects theory” (that the ubiquity of distribution of WMP through Windows will
result in content providers coding content only for WMP and this will reinforce
the WMP market share) has been proven completely irrelevant by the
marketplace.
So, both the anti-competitive
network effects theory and the imposed remedy have been proven irrelevant by
the marketplace. What remains? Has there been any benefit to consumers by
the Commission’s action? The typical
consumer receives the WMP with a new Windows computer and then downloads and
tries a few other media players. It
takes a few minutes to download and install them – an insignificant consumers’
surplus loss. It is hard to imagine that
this insignificant loss drove this antitrust case. Even though the loss is small, is it remedied
by the EU’s approach? Not
at all. Windows-N did not
sell. And this was fortunate for
consumers! If Windows-N were a success,
consumers who bought it would have been deprived of even the knowledge that
media players existed! In contrast, the
USDOJ-Microsoft consent decree allows key Microsoft middleware (such as WMP and
Internet Explorer) to be in Windows but gives the choice to both the computer
manufacturer and the consumer to select the default media player, Internet
browser, etc. Thus, the
More generally, software
development has progressed with constant additions to functionality of existing
software. This is true across the whole
software sector. The Commission’s
approach was to “freeze” Windows (or any dominant firm’s product) and force the
dominant firm to sell the “frozen” version side-by-side with the expanded
functionality version. The marketplace
rejects the frozen version, so this rule hardly remedies anything. In the
On interoperability, the
Commission imposed the requirement on Microsoft to license communications
protocols between Windows clients and non-Windows servers. Interoperability defines the ability of two
products to work together. In software,
there can be varying degrees of interoperability. Some interoperability can be guaranteed by
the interface between the components.
But full interoperability between say a Sun server and a Windows client
requires the understanding of exactly how internal functions in the Windows
client work. Requiring disclosure of the
interface between products is one thing; requiring disclosure of the internal
functions of a product (since this may be the only way to reach full
interoperability) is much more onerous.
By requiring full disclosure at a nominal price, the EU decision in
effect reduces the value of intellectual property for dominant firms. Additionally, in the particular case, full
understanding of internal Windows functions is valuable to Sun beyond
interoperability. To the extent that
Windows clients and servers have similar technology, full disclosure allows Sun
to see how the Windows server works.
That is, the Commission’s vertical remedy gives an advantage to Sun in
horizontal competition.
The EU case outcome showed a
significant divergence in antitrust standards between the EU and the