Collateral Microsoft judgement

This is not THE Microsoft judgement, butone related to Microsoft.

"
A French court has ruled that Acer, the third largest computer manufacturer in the world, must refund a consumer the price of bundled software he did not want. The bundling of operating systems has been bad for consumers by enabling …" See more on The Globalisation Institute Blog

Advertisement

Lunchtime Lecture: Professor Valentine Korah

Professor Valentine Korah will give a lunchtime lecture on 18 October 2007 at the Research Centre, with the support of the Centre for Competition Culture, Office of Economic Competition.

Read more here or click here for the poster.

Microsoft

I am not sure who is right, but there is a little bit of truth in these words:

“It is totally unacceptable that a representative of the U.S. administration criticized an independent court of law outside its jurisdiction,” the commissioner, Neelie Kroes, said. “The European Commission does not pass judgment on rulings by U.S. courts, and we expect the same degree of respect.”

Source see also here and here.

Microsoft

I am not sure who is right, but there is a little bit fo truth in these words:

“It is totally unacceptable that a representative of the U.S. administration criticized an independent court of law outside its jurisdiction,” the commissioner, Neelie Kroes, said. “The European Commission does not pass judgment on rulings by U.S. courts, and we expect the same degree of respect.”

Source see also here and here.

fines

one to the top list from today:
"Antitrust: Commission fines members of fasteners cartels over €328 million …
The European Commission has fined YKK, Prym and Coats and four others a total of € 328 644 000 for operating cartels on the markets for fasteners and attaching machines " As "usual" it was a result of a leniency application, included a dawn raid, highest management involved, for a substantial period of time, parents involved, etc.

Microsoft day…

Today most of the blogs I hve read were concerned with the Microsoft decision. The other case is also part of the battle of the BIGs against the Commission… Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd and Akcros Chemicals Ltd v Commission of the European Communities.

From the press release: "As regards the types of privileged documents, the Court holds that internal company documents, even if they have not been exchanged with a lawyer or have not been created for the purpose of being sent to a lawyer, may nonetheless be covered by protection of confidentiality of communications between lawyers and their clients, provided that they were drawn up exclusively for the purpose of seeking legal advice from a lawyer in exercise of the rights of defence. On the other hand, the mere fact that a document has been discussed with a lawyer is not sufficient to give it such protection. The Court adds that the fact that a document has been put together under a competition law compliance programme does not suffice by itself to confer protection on that document. Such programmes often encompass in their scope duties and information which go beyond the exercise of the rights of defence.

…

Finally, the Court rejects the argument advanced by Akzo Nobel and Akcros concerning extension of the personal scope of protection of confidentiality of communications between lawyers and their clients beyond the limits laid down by the Court of Justice. In that regard, the Court of First Instance notes that the Court of Justice expressly held that the protection only applies to the extent that the lawyer is independent, that is to say, not bound to his client by a relationship of employment, and expressly excluded communications with in-house lawyers. The Court states that, even though it is the case that specific recognition of the role of in-house lawyers and the protection of communications with such lawyers is relatively more common today than when the judgment in AM & S was handed down, it is not possible, nevertheless, to identify tendencies which are uniform or have clear majority support in that regard in the laws of the Member States. The evolution of competition law since that judgment does not justify an alteration of that case-law either, it not being contrary to the principle of equal treatment or the free movement of services. Consequently, the Court holds that the exchange of emails with a member of Akzo Nobel’s legal department should not be covered by the protection of confidentiality of communications between lawyers and their clients.

Massimo Motta in Hungary

The author of one of my favorite – professional – books was in Hungary to introduce the Hungarian translation. We will need lots of such events and books – in a positive sense – to spread "competition culture".

Battle of small giants…

Financial Times: " OMV, the Austrian energy group, said it would not be deflected from plans to forge closer links with Mol, in spite of the Hungarian company’s recourse last week to a white knight from the Czech Republic. …

Mol is now believed to control 39.5 per cent of its own stock, with a large part parked with friendly institutions to get round a Hungarian law banning a listed company from owning more than 10 per cent of its own equity. …

“It is clear that Mol’s intention by tying up with CEZ is to try to park its shares with a friendly company to block a takeover by OMV,” said Tibor Bokor, an analyst at Wood & Co in Prague. …"

Cartel judgement

The Metropolitan Court of Appeal upheld a judgement of the Metropolitan Court and so basically the decision of the NCA on the second largest cartel fine in Hungary on 29 August 2007.

The origins of the case are routed in the agreement between the underatkings on the parts of highways which they should build (market allocation) and additionally that they will contract some of the work out to eachother. This is a classical bid-rigging story. At the time of the decision on fines, the NCA imposed the biggest ever fine in Hungary (more than 7 billion HUF), but since than it was topped by an other fine (insurrance companies – GCR reported on it). This was due to the severity of the infringement. E.g. all the seriuos possible tenderees have participated; the agreement had a long-term effect on highway constructions; the cartel concerned public resources; etc.

 

I think we will see finally a damages claim…