Counteraction to Monopolistic Activity in the Field of Software on the Example of Cases against Microsoft
https://doi.org/10.38050/2078-3809-2018-10-2-29-52
Abstract
The present work is devoted to the description of the evolution of antimonopoly cases brought against Microsoft by the American, European and Russian antimonopoly authorities. The focus of this work is on assessing the ability of Microsoft as a manufacturer of an operating system that occupies a dominant position that can influence competition in the application software market, including the browser market, antivirus protection and media players. The position in the market of operating systems is closely related to the presence of direct and indirect network effects. It was found that in most cases Microsoft was accused of obtaining vertical restrictions and related sales in order to restrict competition. In addition, in later antitrust cases against Microsoft, there has been an increasing focus on behavioral aspects.
About the Authors
Anastasia Kosyakina
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Graduate student, Faculty of Economics
Moscow
Alina Podlesnaya
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Graduate student, Faculty of Economics
Moscow
References
1. Авдашева С.Б., Шаститко А.Е. (ред.) Антимонопольная политика на связанных рынках: теория и практика. М.: Дело РАНХиГС, 2018.
2. Голованова С. В. Проблемы ограничения конкуренции на рынках, смежных с рынками ключевых мощностей. // Журнал Новой экономической ассоциации. 2013. № 4 (20). С. 110–132.
3. Елманова Н. Серверные ОС ведущих производителей // Компьютер-пресс. 2003. № 10. С. 40–42.
4. Решение по делу No. 1-00-168/00-11-16 о нарушении антимонопольного законодательства (2017). Режим доступа: http://socexpertiza.ru/examples/kaspersky.pdf.
5. Шаститко А.А. Поведенческий антитраст // Экономическая политика. 2014. № 6. С. 76–91.
6. Шаститко А.Е., Курдин А.А. Эффекты распространения рыночной власти владельцев ключевых мощностей на рынках программного обеспечения // Управленец. 2017. № 4(68). С. 43–52.
7. Энтин К.В. Отказ предприятия поставлять товар как злоупотребление доминирующим положением по ст. 102 ДФЕС. Обзор судебной практики // Избранные решения европейских судебных инстанций: постановления и комментарии. М.: МГИМО-Университет. 2011. № 4. С. 161–182.
8. Antitrust: Commission fines Microsoft for non-compliance with browser choice commitments: press-release (2013) // EU Competition and Regulatory.
9. Banasevic N., Huby J., Castellot M. P., Sitar O., Piffaut H. Commission adopts decision in the Microsoft case // Competition Policy newsletter, European Commission. 2004. Vol. 2. No. 12. P. 44–48.
10. Buhr C-C., Bulst F. W., Foucault J., Kramler T. The Commission’s decision in the Microsoft IE case and recent developments in the area of interoperability // Competition Policy Newsletter, European Commission. 2010. Vol. 1. No. 9. P. 37–40.
11. Commission Imposes в €899 Million Penalty on Microsoft for Non-Compliance with Remedies: press-release // European Commission. 2012. No. 89.
12. Economides N. (2001). United States v. Microsoft: A Failure of Antitrust in the New Economy. New York University // http://www.stern.nyu.edu/networks/UWLA.pdf.
13. Evans D. S., Schmalensee R. (2000). Be Nice to Your Rivals: How the Government is Selling an Antitrust Case without Consumer Harm in U.S. v. Microsoft, in Did Microsoft Harm Consumers?: Two Opposing Views, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, Washington, D.C.
14. Genakos Ch., Kuhn K. U., Van Reenen J. The European commission versus Microsoft: competition policy in high-tech industries // Centrepiece. 2007. Vol. 12. No. 1. P. 2–7.
15. Gilbert R. J., Katz, M. L. An economist's guide to US v. Microsoft // Journal of Economic perspectives. 2001. Vol. 15. No. 2. P. 25–44.
16. Gisser M., Allen M. S. One monopoly is better than two: Antitrust policy and Microsoft // Review of Industrial Organization. 2001. Vol. 19. No. 2. P. 211–225.
17. Klein B. The Microsoft case: what can a dominant firm do to defend its market position? // Journal of Economic perspectives. 2001. Vol. 15. No. 2. P. 45–62.
18. Lopatka J. E., Page W. H. Antitrust on Internet Time: Microsoft and the Law and Economics of Exclusion // Supreme Court Economic Review. 1999. Vol. 7. P. 157–232.
19. Rubinfeld D. Maintenance of Monopoly: US v. Microsoft (2001). The Antitrust Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
20. Stucke M. E. Behavioral Antitrust and Monopolization // University of Tennessee Legal Studies Research Paper. 2012. No. 171. 40 p.
21. Заявление «Лаборатории Касперского» о взаимодействии с Microsoft (2017) // Официальный сайт «Лаборатории Касперского». Режим доступа: https://www.kaspersky.ru/about/press-releases/2017_kaspersky-lab-statement-about-interactionwith-microsoft
22. Касперский Е. (2016). С меня хватит! // Официальный блог Евгения Касперского. Режим доступа: https://eugene.kaspersky.ru/2016/11/10/s-menya-xvatit/
23. «Лаборатория Касперского» обратилась к европейским регуляторам с запросом о возбуждении антимонопольного расследования в отношении Microsoft (2017) // Официальный сайт «Лаборатории Касперского». Режим доступа: https://www.kaspersky.ru/about/press-releases/2017_kaspersky-lab-microsoft
24. Решение и предписание по делу № 1-14-21/00-11-15. Решение по делу. ФАС России (18 сентября 2015 г.). http://solutions.fas.gov.ru/ca/upravlenie-regulirovaniya-svyazi-iinformatsionnyh-tehnologiy/ad-54066-15/
25. Report on Competition Policy // European Commission. 2004. Vol. 1. Mode of access: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/annual_report/2004/en.pdf
26. Brief for the United States, United States v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 03-5030 (August 6, 2003). Mode of access: https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/504251/download
27. Complaint in re US v. Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action No. 94-1564 (SS), July 15, 1994 at 1, and Final Judgment in re US v. Microsoft Corporation, filed July 27, 1994. Mode of access: https://www.justice.gov/atr/memorandum-opinion-us-v-microsoft-corp#N_6_
28. United States of America, Appellant, v. Microsoft Corporation United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation, Appellant, 56 F.3d 1448 (D.C. Cir. 1995). Mode of access: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/56/1448/623900/
29. U.S. v. Microsoft. 1998. Civil Action No. 98–1232 (Antitrust), Complaint, U.S. District Court For The Dis-trict Of Columbia, May 18, 1998. Mode of access: https://www.justice.gov/atr/complaint-us-v-microsoft-corp
30. U.S. v. Microsoft. 2000b. Civil Action No. 98– 1232 (TPJ), cfdCourt’s Finding of Facts, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, November 5, 1999. Mode of access: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/atr/legacy/2006/04/11/msjudge.pdf
Review
For citations:
Kosyakina A., Podlesnaya A. Counteraction to Monopolistic Activity in the Field of Software on the Example of Cases against Microsoft. Scientific Research of Faculty of Economics. Electronic Journal. 2018;10(2):29-52. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.38050/2078-3809-2018-10-2-29-52
Views:
362
Email this article 