Major competitors have found ways to circumvent Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser dominance, but not so the European Commission, which had accused Microsoft of violating EU antitrust laws by tying Windows' most popular features together. The commission also accused Microsoft of abusing its position with a bundling and rebating practice that enabled OEMs to sell Windows at a discount. Microsoft has since stopped bundling IE with Windows and stopped offering the option to download the browser for free. Under today's deal, Microsoft will grant the commission "complete access" to documents and internal investigations related to any new abuse charges. "There will be no sunset date on this undertaking," and its validity will be reviewed in the next two years by an independent panel of experts. Microsoft will pay 2.25 million Euros in legal fees and other costs associated with the investigation. The commission said it would accept the settlement, but noted that its ability to monitor Microsoft's activities would be hindered by a lack of cooperation from Microsoft itself. "The agreement today is an important milestone," said Andreas Buccheri, the head of the European Commission's competition unit, in a statement. "It is a clear commitment on Microsoft's part to avoid future abuses, and it marks the continuation of the dialogue between the Commission and Microsoft." There are those who would argue that Microsoft was right to be concerned about the commission's conduct with respect to this case. In December 2006, the commission fined Microsoft 110 million Euros for its bundling practice. The commission based the fine on Microsoft's average gross revenue for Windows licenses for the two years prior to the company's settlement agreement. If the commission had been more "reasonable" (in their eyes) when calculating the fine, that fine would have amounted to about $250 million, not $2.6 billion. Microsoft appealed, arguing that the fine wasn't equitable and wasn't based on "commercial reality." Today's settlement is part of the company's appeal in that case. The commission was unmoved by these arguments. The $2.5 million fine "was the result of a negotiated and reasonable settlement between Microsoft and the Commission," noted Damir Canjanovic, the head of the commission's competition unit. The commission said that the settlement "ensures that Microsoft will take serious steps to prevent similar practices in the future." This is certainly an improvement over the current practice, but this new settlement has the potential to negatively impact the commission's credibility on Microsoft issues. Microsoft's recent history of non-compliance with antitrust practices (and sometimes overt anticompetitive behavior) has left some to wonder if this is all Microsoft's fault. The mere fact that Microsoft is making these reforms is a good thing, but it's not going to be enough to prevent future abuse cases from occurring. As Google has found over the past few years, simply being transparent about these things isn't enough. Instead of having the appearance of being in compliance and being upfront about it, companies such as Microsoft, Google, and Apple need to be held to a higher standard if the European Union and US's goal is to provide fair markets. Comments Threshold Username Password remember me This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled "Windows isn't bad as an operating system, but it really should be called "Windows: The PC User Interface". I've used Windows for the last 14 years but I don't think that either MS or I will miss Windows 8 much." How does you being a casual user of Win 7 prove that OS's not only bad, but are bad even after 14 years? Also if OS's are so bad then what's the point in having OS's, after all you have just confirmed that its not worth trying to design new ones. "Not really. Microsoft hasn't been breaking any laws and if they did Microsoft doesn't have to comply with any laws either." Yes Microsoft has been breaking some laws. "And there have been cases where people could have gotten away with breaking the law, but they decided to give in instead." There have been cases where people have not got away with breaking the law. "Yes, and it's also a good thing that the European Union has more power than the U.S. government to enforce anti-trust laws." I doubt that the EU has more power than the US gov't to enforce antitrust laws. I think that this case was a political one rather than one based on enforcing rules. "I'd like to see how long Microsoft has waited before "going after" the music and video providers for anti-trust violations." While I dont have the stats in front of me (which is why I was able to guess that they have been waiting many years) I believe that before the digital music market took off that Microsoft had very little leverage to make music and video providers follow their rules. I think that once the music and video industry got up and running that things changed and Microsoft was able to leverage its power to force these providers to do things their way. "I'd like to see how long Microsoft has waited before "going after" the music and video providers for anti-trust violations." While I dont have the stats in front of me (which is why I was able to guess that they have been waiting many years) I believe that before the digital music market took off that Microsoft had very little leverage to make music and video providers follow their rules. I think that once the music and video industry got up and running that things changed and Microsoft was able to leverage its power to force these providers to do things their way. How would you defend your comment that a company that has broken such laws over its entire history should be given a free pass on this one, or at least a free pass in exchange for a $250,000 fine. "How would you defend your comment that a company that has broken such laws over its entire history should be given a free pass on this one, or at least a free pass in exchange for a $250,000 fine." Well the fact is that Microsoft is already paying billions in fines, so its not like the EU is doing them any favors. The whole point of fines is to deter. As for whether or not they are just, I would say no. But there are other ways to remedy this other than to break the law. I would also point out that when people make bad choices there are costs associated with that. For example a company that does not pay attention to competition law is going to suffer from lower quality products, and not to mention potentially losing sales as well. Also Microsoft can certainly compete in the marketplace in the way that it has currently done. IE for example was bundled with Windows for years and Microsoft didn't have as much of a monopoly on that product as they do now (IE was never IE for all of Microsoft's products). For me I think the important thing is that Microsoft has committed to not violate anti-trust laws in the future. That is all we should really want them to do. "When an article about Microsoft has any comments about them other than "Worst company ever". Microsoft has to spend a lot of time and money explaining that they aren't evil" What a strange comment! I would expect that anyone who has never worked for a company who has paid fines in the millions to be accused of being a monopolist to have negative views of Microsoft. After all the people at the company have to deal with all the bad press, and negative effects that the company is forced to pay for as part of it legal settlements. I am happy that someone at Microsoft can look at this as a positive thing but not that any of their competitors are less than positive of Microsoft. Microsoft has no monopoly and hasn't for a long time. MSFT may dominate the computer operating system market with over 90% of the market and other platforms but that does not make them a monopoly. Also to note Microsoft does actually compete with other OEMs or at least their products do in many areas such as mobile devices and apps etc. "There are also some people who are still bitter over this." Thats a bit of a generalization and over all statement. Personally I think a lot of people would be bitter about the EU's anti-trust actions against Microsoft. That would especially be the case for individuals who have lost a job because of these actions or any company that has lost money because of these actions. I do think that the level of enforcement has been a bit excessive at times and Microsoft has made mistakes from time to time as well. I think that overall the fines that have been levied are a fair way to go about enforcing the law but even these actions need to be looked at as a business tool not a government run thing. I for one am not happy with the fines being levied. Just because Microsoft's previous behavior has been so bad as to cause the EU to take action, that doesn't necessarily mean that Microsoft should be punished. Also Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to offload the payment of fines onto their customers via bundling practices. The entire purpose of anti-trust laws is to make companies charge the customer directly instead of passing on the cost to them. That way it is more