WRITTEN QUESTION E-3111/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Accepting or resisting continuing efforts by the Microsoft IT corporation to use bundled software to secure an unassailable monopoly position.
Date: 2001-11-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United States, competition law, complaint to the Commission, dominant position, information technology industry, on line data service, operating system, restrictive trade practice, software

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/97

old practice of externally imposed policy conditionalities by the Bretton Woods Institutions (BWI),
sometimes including rushed privatisations of public enterprises, which are not necessarily accompanied by
an adequate regulatory framework and institutions.

Policy dialogue with beneficiary countries is the key for reaching a common understanding on macro-
economic and sector policy reforms under PRSPs. The Commission, along with the Member States, has
been working closely with the BWIs to ensure that policy dialogue covers both the expected impact on
poverty reduction and on macro-economic stability. PRSPs endorsed by the BWIs imply that there is
generally a common understanding on envisaged policy reforms. The Commission plays an important role
in policy dialogue in the areas of concentration of its aid.

In its Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) recognises country
ownership and promotes more pro-poor oriented expenditures and selective policy conditionalities. The
IMF is increasingly focusing on sound macroeconomic management secured through good fiscal,
monetary, income and foreign exchange policies rather than through structural reform conditionalities,
including privatisation.

The World Bank remains the key player in the area of structural and institutional reforms. If one of the
PRSP priorities is to increase access to safe water at affordable cost, policy measures suggest how to
achieve it. The policy choice will be agreed upon under a specific Bank operation. Well-conceptualised
privatisation needs to be accompanied by creating or strengthening the legal and regulatory framework, as
well as by institutional reforms to ensure that a private company will increase access to safe water by
complying with price and technical/hygienic regulations and standards.

The Commission is constantly in a dialogue with the World Bank on the principles and practices of
privatisation. Every case has to be judged on its own merit and the Commission has no ideological lias.

The Commission’s policy on the provision of water and sanitation services is based both on equity and
sustainability principles, taking into account needs of the poor. The policy choice is based on an analysis
of technical and economic options with a view to bringing about better services. Privatisation is one of the
options. However, experience seems to favour private/public partnership, with a strong participation by
beneficiaries and civil society. The pricing aspect is essential for the viability and maintenance of the
systems, and better management of water resources. Providing better services has a cost. In many instances
the poor may be already paying more than the rich for a lower quality service. Accompanying measures to
improve governance and management capacity, as well as training and awareness raising activities, play
also a key role in reaching sustainability, efficiency and equity in the provision of services.

(2002/C 147 E/103)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3111/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 November 2001)

Subject: Accepting or resisting continuing efforts by the Microsoft IT corporation to use bundled software

to secure an unassailable monopoly position

Is the Commission aware that court proceedings in the United States aimed at forcing the Microsoft
1.
IT corporation to split
the one marketing operating systems and the other
applications software, are continuing, partly as a result of complaints lodged by a number of States against
a legal judgment overturning that requirement as handed down in a previous ruling?

into two companies,

C 147 E/98

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

Does it support the above objective of breaking up a monopoly in the sector? What in that
2.
connection were the Commission’s reasons for announcing on 16 October 2001 that it would not include
Microsoft’s new operating system, Windows XP, in its investigations into monopoly practices?

3. What scope does the Commission see for the future survival of companies marketing products with
Microsoft-comparable features if they are unable to sell their separate stand-alone products because of the
bundled-software approach operated by Microsoft?

For what reasons did competition Commissioner Mario Monti describe as premature and speculative
4.
reports in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere of fines of up to 10 % of annual turnover or 2,5 billion
dollars being imposed on Microsoft after a statement of objections had been leaked in which the company
was accused of misleading and obstructing EU investigators by submitting 34 letters, apparently from
customers, that were intended only to support and defend its business practices.

5.
Does the Commission intend to impose a requirement for the EU market that particular functionality
and applications associated with bundled desktop and server configurations and integration of consumer
applications into such software be removed from the Windows operating system?

6.
Does the combined use of Windows desktop and server configurations, which extends to extra
functionality, such as management applications, amount to illegal practices aimed at dominating the
market in low- to middle-range servers?

How does the Commission assess the fact

7.
that Microsoft withholds details of Windows APIs
(application program interfaces) from suppliers of competing server operating systems, which led server
producer Sun Microsystems to lodge a complaint with the Commission in 1999?

8.
How does the Commission assess the fact that the built-in Windows Media Player provides a
distribution channel for internet multimedia not available to Microsoft’s competitors? Will it seek to end
the new monopoly arising from this bundled-software operation?

Source: Computable 19 October 2001

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2002)

Under the United States judgement referred to by the Honourable Member,

1.
the issue of an
appropriate remedy was remanded to a lower court. The Commission is aware that nine States have
decided to continue appropriate remedy proceedings in this court. However, the Commission stresses that
although there are certain similar elements in the Union and United States cases, the two are factually and
legally different.

2. Where infringements of the Community’s competition rules are found, the Commission supports
remedies which effectively bring such infringements to an end. The Commission has not received a
complaint on Windows XP, and is therefore not conducting a formal investigation at this stage. It is
however, monitoring all ongoing developments in the market.

3. Where additional products are built
the Commission supports the
principle that companies which sell stand-alone products with the same features should be provided the
same access to that dominant platform.

into a dominant platform,

4.
At the time of the reports referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission had not yet
received Microsoft’s reply to its supplementary Statement of Objections. The Commission therefore did not
believe that it was appropriate to be discussing potential fines. As the Commission is now examining
Microsoft’s reply, and as a final decision has not been adopted, the Commission believes that it is still not
appropriate to be discussing potential fines at this stage.

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/99

The Commission expressed concerns that such practices were illegal in its supplementary Statement
5.
of Objections. The Commission is currently examining Microsoft’s reply to this Statement of Objections,
and will on the basis of this and submissions from third parties assess whether these objections are
confirmed. Until this assessment is made, the Commission does not believe that it is appropriate to discuss
potential remedies.

6.
The Commission expressed concerns that such practices were illegal in its supplementary Statement
of Objections. The Commission is currently examining Microsoft’s reply to this Statement of Objections,
and will on the basis of this and submissions from third parties assess whether these objections are
confirmed.

7.
As a result of an exhaustive analysis of the market and Sun’s complaint, the Commission issued a
Statement of Objections in August 2000, in which concerns were raised that Microsoft was withholding
Windows APIs from suppliers of competing server operating systems. More concerns of this nature were
raised in the Commission’s supplementary Statement of Objections which was issued in August 2001. The
Commission is currently examining Microsoft’s response to these objections, and will on the basis of this,
as well as submissions from Sun and other third parties assess whether the objections are confirmed.

In the Commission’s supplementary Statement of Objections, concerns were raised that the bundling
8.
of Media Player into Windows could adversely affect the ability of companies with stand-alone media
player products to compete with Microsoft on a level playing field. The Commission is currently
examining Microsoft’s response to these objections, and will on the basis of this and submissions from
third parties assess whether these objections are confirmed.

(2002/C 147 E/104)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3112/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 November 2001)

Subject: Impact of proposed anti-terrorism Framework proposals and European arrest warrant contrary to

existing civil rights

its Framework for combating terrorism (12103/01 Droipen 81), drawn up on
In the matter of
19 September, and the growing fear it has elicited among European citizens of unwarranted detention on
the basis of a European arrest warrant for actions that have never been and never should amount to an
offence by any natural standard of justice, and that consequently must not be allowed to compromise the
integrity of any law-abiding citizen.

Can the Commission answer the following questions concerning the intended or unintended consequences
of the possible implementation of those proposals:

1. What scope is being given to the courts to deprive individuals of rights hitherto regarded as self-
evident, in particular by detaining suspects on suspicion without charges for longer than currently
permitted, and/or denying them access to defence lawyers?

2. At what stage in proceedings will a suspect become eligible for legal aid, and will legal aid continue to
be provided across borders for the duration of the whole proceedings at no extra cost to the suspect?

3. Will it become an offence to hold certain political or other views, such as advocating changes in state
institutions or in decisions having an impact on the economy, or giving public expression to such
views and seeking to win support for them?

4. What scope will remain for extra-parliamentary action, in particular the right to hold demonstrations
and meetings in public places, take strike action and mount employee workplace occupations as a
means of bringing pressure to bear?

5. Will it be possible for what are now lawful organisations to be prosecuted or banned as a consequence

of the behaviour of a few of their members?

6.

In what circumstances might actions that are permitted in one Member State C such as induced
abortion, voluntary euthanasia and soft-drug consumption C become liable to prosecution on the
grounds that they constitute offences in another Member State?