WRITTEN QUESTION P-2053/02 by Bert Doorn (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Investigation into Microsoft's dominant economic position.
Date: 2002-07-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: competition policy, consumer protection, dominant position, information technology industry, operating system, patents licence, restriction on competition

12.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137 E/41

(2003/C 137 E/046)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2052/02

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Microsoft’s new licensing arrangements

(10 July 2002)

At the end of July the transitional period of a few months set by Microsoft for the introduction of a new
licensing programme comes to an end. That means that upgrades for applications and workstation access
licences are due to expire as of 1 August 2002. For many users, the changes to the programme will mean
that the costs for use of new versions of Microsoft software will roughly double.

There are no reasonable grounds for the big price increases. The changes are not linked to higher costs for
the development or distribution of software. The number of improvements made between two consecutive
versions, and the nature of those improvements, is becoming less and less significant, whilst the price of
upgrades is increasing.
Irrespective of the changes to the licensing programme, the actual prices for
Microsoft products have continued to increase at an excessive rate in relation to other price movements
(i.e. above the rate of inflation).

1.

Is the Commission informed about the introduction by Microsoft of a new licensing programme?

2.
Does the Commission take the view that the introduction of the new licensing programme and the
price increases associated with it constitute a form of abuse of a dominant economic position and are thus
contrary to European competition law?

3.

Does the Commission intend to take steps against Microsoft, and if so, what steps?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2002)

As the Commission has highlighted in its replies to written questions E-1823/02 (1) and E-1824/02 (2) by
Mr Meijer, and P-2053/02 (3) by Mr Doorn:

1. The Commission is aware of the introduction by Microsoft of a new licensing programme.

2. The Commission has not at this stage formally investigated this issue. The Commission cannot
therefore confirm or deny whether the terms of this licensing programme may constitute an abuse of
a dominant position in contravention of the Community’s competition rules.

3.

For reasons of efficient allocation of its limited resources and in light of its ongoing case against
Microsoft, the Commission agreed with several national competition authorities in 2001 that these
competition authorities would conduct the first analysis of Microsoft’s new licensing policy. Taking
into account the work that has been done by the relevant national competition authorities on this
issue, the Commission is currently examining with these authorities the most efficient way to carry the
investigation forward.

(1) OJ C 92 E, 17.4.2003, p. 95.
(2) See page 28.
(3) See page 41.

(2003/C 137 E/047)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2053/02

by Bert Doorn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 July 2002)

Subject: Investigation into Microsoft’s dominant economic position

In spite of the investigation currently being carried out by the European Commission into Microsoft’s
alleged abuse of its dominant economic position, the company appears to be continuing, undeterred,
to pursue the same course.

C 137 E/42

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

12.6.2003

In particular in the area of upgrades or licence renewal for software, the company is intending very shortly
to introduce a number of disproportionate price increases.

Is the Commission aware that, while the investigation is going on, Microsoft is continuing to abuse its
dominant position, specifically by imposing new licensing arrangements for software?

Is the Commission aware that swift action on its part is desirable in view of the major economic interests
at stake and the possible damage to European companies?

What action does the Commission intend to take against Microsoft in the short-term?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2002)

The Commission is aware of Microsoft’ revised practices as regards the pricing of its software upgrades and
licence renewals. As the Commission has not yet formally investigated this issue, it is not in a position to
confirm or deny whether such practices may constitute an abuse of a dominant position.

As the Commission has highlighted in its reply to written question E-1823/02 by Mr Meijer (1), for reasons
of efficient allocation of its limited resources and in light of its ongoing case against Microsoft, the
Commission agreed with several national competition authorities in 2001 that
these competition
authorities would conduct the first analysis of Microsoft’s ‘upgrade’ licensing policy. Taking into account
the work that has been done by the relevant national competition authorities on this issue,
the
Commission is currently examining with these authorities the most efficient way to carry the investigation
forward.

(1) OJ C 92 E, 17.4.2003, p. 95.

(2003/C 137 E/048)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2058/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 July 2002)

Subject: The Enron and WorldCom scandals and the role of accountancy firms

What lessons does the Commission believe should be learned from the series of financial scandals that
have recently rocked Wall Street if investor confidence and the assets of millions of pensioners and
shareholders throughout the European Union are to be protected? In particular, bearing in mind the
extraordinary role played by Arthur Andersen in both the Enron and WorldCom scandals, has the
Commission discussed with Member States the possibility of separating auditing and consultancy roles for
accountancy firms to prevent any future conflict of interest?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 September 2002)

The core of the Commission’s approach to regulating financial services is implementing the Financial
Services Action Plan (FSAP) by 2005 in line with the European Council conclusions. This means agreeing
to European rules in many different areas, ensuring appropriate levels of investor protection which is at
the heart of those measures.

The Commision published on 18 April a ‘first response to Enron related policy issues’ (1). This paper
outlines the main policy actions in 5 key areas to help to prevent similar catastrophies in the Union.
Several of those actions were already being prepared in the light of the FSAP.