The European Union's competition commissioner, Mario Monti, has
said the EU could fine Microsoft over its new Windows XP operating
system.
Unless Microsoft drops some features from its new Windows XP
package, "a fine is a possibility", said Monti.
However, the commissioner expressed regret that a confidential
document detailing the regulators' objections was leaked to the
Wall Street Journal. He also played down the paper's claim for the
size of the penalty.
The allegations of attempting to mislead focus on a series of
letters from customers that were supplied by Microsoft to the
competition commission.
Citing the document outlining its case, the newspaper claimed the
Commission alleged that Microsoft had misled investigators and
sought to obstruct the case. As a result, the newspaper said, the
commission would impose the largest fine it could.
But speaking at a news conference, Monti dismissed the Wall Street
Journal's claims that the fine could be amount to 10% of the
company's annual revenue, or £1.75bn.
"To speak of fines when Microsoft has not even replied is
premature. To enter this game of calculating a fine does no service
to the public at large," he said.
Microsoft has been given a little extra time to make its response
to the case.
In August, the EU confirmed that it had merged two antitrust
investigations into Microsoft's operating systems, and that it was
in the process of determining if the company had violated European
antitrust rules by "using illegal practices to extend its dominant
position in the market for personal computer operating systems into
the market for low-end server operating systems."
The EU has charged that Microsoft has actively attempted to
dominate the corporate and Internet computer software market with
its Windows and Office software while also attempting to put a
stranglehold on competing software for operating music and video
over the Web, all in violation of European antitrust laws.
The report comes the day after the US Supreme Court rejected
Microsoft's appeal to overturn a lower court's ruling that the
company violated antitrust laws.