Sodišče v Luksemburgu potrdilo 860-milijonsko globo za Microsoft

PaX_MaN je 28. jun 2012 ob 10:50 izjavil:

Icematxyz je 27. jun 2012 ob 22:22 izjavil:

Tukaj imaš:

Nočem komentarjev sodbe, hočem komentarje pravne podlage za to sodbo.
(Tko k maš "Komentar Slovenske ustave" pa "Kazenski zakonik s komentarjem")

139 In that regard, it should be recalled that, in order for the refusal by an undertaking which owns a copyright to give access to a product or service indispensable for carrying on a particular business to be regarded as abuse, it is sufficient that three cumulative conditions be satisfied, namely that that refusal is preventing the emergence of a new product for which there is a potential consumer demand, that it is unjustified and that it is such as to exclude any competition on a secondary market (Case C‑418/01 IMS Health [2004] ECR I‑5039, paragraph 38).

140 In this case, it has been found that, since the three cumulative conditions mentioned in paragraph 139 above were satisfied, Microsoft’s refusal to give access to the interoperability information and to authorise its use was abusive (see, to that effect, Microsoft v Commission, paragraph 18 above, paragraphs 711 and 712)....

142 Moreover, allowing Microsoft to charge remuneration rates reflecting the value resulting from the mere ability to interoperate with Microsoft’s operating systems – in other words the strategic value stemming from Microsoft’s power in the client PC operating systems market or the work group server operating systems market – would in effect allow it to transform the benefits of the abuse into remuneration for the grant of licences. Recognition of such a right would by definition run counter to the objective stated in recital 1003 to the 2004 decision, which is to allow viable competition with Microsoft’s work group server operating system, since Microsoft would be in a position to charge all potential competitors prohibitive rates of remuneration. As is stated in recitals 106 and 107 to the contested decision, such rates thus could not be regarded as reasonable for the purposes of recital 1008(ii) and Article 5(a) of the 2004 decision.

Microsoft has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google in the European Union, claiming that the search giant is stifling competition.

...accuses the search giant of taking measures to push out Microsoft and other competitors in the European market...

...“Google has done much to advance its laudable mission to ‘organize the world’s information,’” writes Smith, “but we’re concerned by a broadening pattern of conduct aimed at stopping anyone else from creating a competitive alternative.”...

...According to Microsoft, Google’s unwillingness to let the Microsoft’s Bing search engine (and Yahoo! search, which is powered by Bing) fully index Google-owned sites like YouTube prevents Bing from offering fully informed searches to its users...

...Also, Microsoft says Google blocks its Windows Phone mobile operating system from accessing vast amounts of metadata associated with YouTube videos. “We just need permission to access YouTube in the way that other phones already do, permission Google has refused to provide,” writes Smith...

...Lastly, Microsoft says Google’s ad contracts stifle competition by preventing companies that use Google’s ad platform from using third-party software that compares ad pricing between various companies and enable them to easily switch to another ad service...

139 In that regard, it should be recalled that, in order for the refusal by an undertaking which owns a copyright to give access to a product or service indispensable for carrying on a particular business to be regarded as abuse, it is sufficient that three cumulative conditions be satisfied, namely that that refusal is preventing the emergence of a new product for which there is a potential consumer demand, that it is unjustified and that it is such as to exclude any competition on a secondary market (Case C‑418/01 IMS Health [2004] ECR I‑5039, paragraph 38)

In boš verjetno že razumel, če je to tvoj namen, če pa ni pa ovrži to razsodbo s pravno podlago in komentarji, ki torej to konkretno razsodbo izpodbijajo!

Case C-418/01 IMS Health [2004] ECR I-5039, paragraph 38

Saj del, ki sem ti ga podal in menim, da za formske razprave in dovolj visok nivo zadostuje je načeloma utemeljitev sodbe in že iz njega je drugače tudi razvidna ustrezna podlaga?

Možna plačila preko TRR ali če se izkoristi bonus in se v naslednji temi sprejme neka osnovna predpostavka, da nek organ EU, ki odloča o nekih pomembnih zadevah verjetno da ima za to tudi pravno in ne iz zadnjice potegnjeno podlago in da verjetno tožena stranka ne bi pred temi organi nastopala tudi kot tožnik, če temu ne bi bilo tako in da se načeloma to ne rabi dokazovati, ampak se lahko predvideva, da je temu tako?