Luxemburg, 09/12/2005 (Agence Europe) - The President of the Court of First Instance, Bo Vesterdorf, has just dismissed an application from the International Association of Microsoft Certified Partners (IAMCP, Markham, Ontario), the International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI, Washington DC), the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI, Lewisville, Texas) and the Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF, Washington DC) to intervene on behalf of Microsoft against the European Commission.
In an Order, Bo Vesterdorf considered that the IAMCP objects “do not include the protection of its members' interests or the representation of its members. In reality, its essential objective is to promote, among its members, an exchange of information and discussion on trade and technical issues”; indeed, the IAMCP did not participate in the administrative procedure which led to the adoption of the Commission's decision against Microsoft on 24 March 2004. The fact that the IAMCP is properly incorporated (in the State of Delaware) proves only that it exists in law. Although necessary, that proof did not constitute a sufficient ground for its application to intervene to be allowed, said the President of the Court.
As for IIPI, IPI and PFF, “As they define themselves, they are in reality merely 'think tanks' whose objects include (…) the promotion of strong intellectual property rights in the information technology field”. The interest claimed by these companies “is in fact merely an indirect and purely abstract and academic interest”, insufficient to allow them to intervene on behalf of Miscrosoft, said the President of the Court.
Microsoft had asked the Court of First Instance to annul the European Commission's decision of March 2004, imposing a fine and conditions for Microsoft's infringement of European competition rules (see EUROPE 8673). Bo Vesterdorf has already permitted a number of companies to intervene on behalf either of Microsoft or the Commission (see EUROPE 8795). The parties will be heard in public sitting of the Court in 2006. This case has been delayed because a change in the juge rapporteur. The Irishman John Cook replaced the Frenchman Hubert Legal after his statements, deemed untimely, on competition law in a French magazine (see EUROPE 8979).