ECIS submitted comments to the European Commission on the Community patent and EU patent judiciary system. As ECIS points out in its comments, a Community patent system worth adopting must be balanced, ensure high quality patents and judicial decisions, and be reliable and ensure legal certainty to all interested parties. PDF download.
In its comments on the Communication from the European Commission about “An Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe” ECIS calls on the EU to guard against increasing intellectual property protection as a purpose in and of itself as opposed to a means to an end, namely increased innovation and greater welfare for society. More here.
In its comments submitted to the European Commission, ECIS notes that EIF 2.0, if adopted and implemented, would make a significant contribution to encouraging openness and genuine interoperability across borders and software applications used in European eGovernment. The Draft recognises interoperability as a key means to promote efficient pan-European Government Services
(“PEGS”). ECIS supports these goals and encourages the Commission to adopt EIF v2.0 as a mechanism to achieve them. For more click here.
Microsoft continues to resist compliance with binding anti-trust rulings in both the US and the EU. In the latest development, yesterday the US Federal District Court in Washington heard evidence confirming that after four years Microsoft has still not yet fully complied with its legal obligations under its 2003 Consent Decree with the US Department of Justice and is introducing new problems. That Decree is now set to expire in November, with Microsoft’s overwhelming dominance unaffected.
Brussels – 27 June 2007 – “This lack of result is sadly familiar to EU anti-trust authorities, where Microsoft likewise has not complied with the European Commission’s March 2004 Decision condemning it for abuses of its dominant position,” said ECIS Chairman Simon Awde commenting on the reports of the US hearing. “Their strategy is clearly the same on both sides of the Atlantic: delay compliance and run out the clock on the original orders while Vista and Longhorn take over the market.”
“Here in Europe we can only hope that a decisive ruling by the EU Court of First Instance on Microsoft’s appeal of the European Commission’s 2004 Decision, now expected by mid-September, will put an end to nearly three and a half years of similar studied delays,” Awde said.
The US court hearing also heard about how Microsoft had violated its 2003 Consent Decree by unfairly impeding access to rival desktop search engines by bundling its own previously separate desktop search product into Vista. This undermines users’ access to other search engines. The Court heard that just days before the hearing, Microsoft had finally agreed to take some steps to address these concerns.
“Only after direct pressure from US regulators, and just days before yesterday’s hearing, did Microsoft agree to do something,” Awde pointed out. “And even now the terms of the solution remain unclear, and whether it has any use will depend – as usual – on Microsoft’s implementation.”
“Once again we see that Microsoft reacts only under direct pressure from public authorities, and even then in a manner that prolongs the compliance process,” Awde concluded.
Brussels – 23 April 2007 – “It is standard industry practice to license interoperability information royalty-free,” said Simon Awde, Chairman of the European Committee for Interoperable Systems (ECIS). “We therefore view Microsoft’s statement today urging the Commission to provide greater clarity on the royalties that the company can charge, as just another example of its chronic foot dragging towards anti-trust compliance,” he added, pointing out that a full three years after the EU’s March 2004 Decision, Microsoft still has not properly complied with the necessary remedies.
“Microsoft’s wish for ‘a constructive conversation’ with the Commission on this issue confirms our concerns,” he commented. There are multiple examples of Microsoft licensing its interoperability information on a royalty-free basis in those areas where it has not achieved a dominant position. “So, why does Microsoft need a conversation with the Commission to set suitable royalty rates,” Awde asked.
Awde concluded that “there is no doubt that the 2004 Decision obligates Microsoft to license. We can only believe that by trying to impose a prohibitive royalty rate, Microsoft is effectively refusing to license.”
Background
After one of the most extensive and lengthy investigations in the history of EU competition law, the European Commission condemned Microsoft in March 2004 for foreclosing competition for work group servers and media players. To remedy this market abuse, the Decision requires Microsoft to not only disclose necessary interoperability information, but also to license it on fair and reasonable terms. It further stipulates that Microsoft can charge only for the innovative value of the interoperability protocol, and not simply for the right to interoperate with Microsoft‘s operating system.