In Case T-201/04 ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FOURTH CHAMBEROF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE9 March 2005 (1)
Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea

In Case T-201/04 ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FOURTH CHAMBEROF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE9 March 2005 (1)

Fecha: 03-Dic-1998

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FOURTH CHAMBEROF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
9 March 2005 (1)

(‘Intervention – Interest in the result of the case – Request for confidential treatment’)

In Case T-201/04,

Microsoft Corp.,

applicant,

v

Commission of the European Communities,

defendant,



THE PRESIDENT OF THE FOURTH CHAMBEROF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES



makes the following



Order




Background

1
Microsoft Corp. (‘Microsoft’), established in Redmond, Washington (United States), develops and markets software products.

2
Microsoft’s products include client personal computer (‘PC’) operating systems, named Windows, work group server operating systems, named Windows Server, and streaming media players, named Windows Media Player.

3
On 10 December 1998, Sun Microsystems, Inc., established in Palo Alto, California (United States), lodged a complaint with the Commission. This complaint was directed against Microsoft’s refusal to disclose information which Sun Microsystems deemed necessary to allow interoperability of its work group server operating systems with Windows.

4
In February 2000, the Commission launched a separate investigation against Microsoft. This investigation concerned the incorporation of Windows Media Player in Windows.

5
The proceedings initiated pursuant to Sun Microsystems’ complaint and to the Commission’s separate investigation were subsequently joined under Case COMP/C‑3/37.792.

6
On 24 March 2004, the Commission adopted a decision C(2004)900 final relating to a proceeding under Article 82EC in Case COMP/C‑3/37.792 – Microsoft (the ‘Decision’).

7
In assessing Microsoft’s behaviour in the Decision, the Commission first defined three relevant product markets. These are the market for client PC operating systems (recitals 324 to 342 of the Decision), the market for work group server operating systems (recitals 343 to 401 of the Decision) and the market for streaming media players (recitals 402 to 425 of the Decision).

8
Second, the Commission found that each of these relevant product markets was of worldwide dimension (recital 427 of the Decision).

9
Third, the Commission considered that Microsoft held a dominant position on two of these markets, namely that for client PC operating systems (recitals 429 to 472 of the Decision) and that for work group server operating systems (recitals 473 to 541 of the Decision).

10
Fourth, the Commission took the view that Microsoft’s behaviour violated Article 82 EC. Microsoft was deemed to abuse its dominant position by refusing to supply competitors with interoperability information and to allow them to use it for the purpose of developing and distributing competing products on the market for work group server operating systems, from October 1998 onwards (recitals 546 to 791 and Article 2(a) of the Decision). Microsoft was also deemed to abuse its dominant position by tying Windows Media Player with Windows, from May 1999 onwards (recitals 792 to 989 and Article 2(b) of the Decision).

11
Fifth, the Commission found it appropriate to require Microsoft to put an end to such behaviour, to refrain from repeating it or from engaging in equivalent behaviour, and to comply with a set of remedies (recitals 994 to 1053 and Articles 4 to 8 of the Decision).

12
Sixth, the Commission imposed a fine of 497196304 euros on Microsoft (recitals 1054 to 1080 and Article 3 of the Decision).


Procedure

13
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 7 June 2004, Microsoft, represented by J.-F.Bellis, lawyer, and I.Forrester, QC, brought an action for annulment of the Decision or, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine.

14
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court on 11 June 2004, RealNetworks, Inc. (‘RealNetworks’), established in Seattle, Washington (United States), represented by A.Winckler, M.Dolmans and T.Graf, lawyers, requested leave to intervene in the case in support of the form of order sought by the Commission.

15
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court on 1 July 2004, Software & Information Industry Association (‘SIIA’), established in Washington, DC (United States), represented by C. Simpson, solicitor, requested leave to intervene in the case in support of the form of order sought by the Commission.

16
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court on 1 July 2004, The Computing Technology Industry Association, Inc. (‘CompTIA’), established in Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois (United States), represented by G.Van Gerven and T.Franchoo, lawyers, and B.Kilpatrick, solicitor, requested leave to intervene in the case in support of the form of order sought by Microsoft.

17
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court on 5 July 2004, DMDsecure.com BV (‘DMD’), established in Amsterdam (Netherlands), MPS Broadband AB (‘MPS’), established in Stockholm (Sweden), Pace Micro Technology plc (‘PMT’), established in Shipley, West Yorkshire (United Kingdom), Quantel Ltd (‘Quantel’), established in Newbury, Berkshire (United Kingdom), and Tandberg Television Ltd (‘Tandberg’), established in Southampton, Hampshire (United Kingdom) (collectively, ‘DMD and others’), all represented by J.Bourgeois, lawyer, requested leave to intervene in the case in support of the form of order sought by Microsoft.

18
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court on 13 July 2004, Free Software Foundation Europe eV (‘FSFE’), established in Hamburg (Germany), represented by C.Piana, lawyer, requested leave to intervene in the case in support of the form of order sought by the Commission.

19
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court on 16 August 2004, Association for Competitive Technology, Inc. (‘ACT’), established in Washington, DC (United States), represented by L.Ruessmann, lawyer, requested leave to intervene in the case in support of the form of order sought by Microsoft.

20
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court on 17 August 2004, Mamut ASA (‘Mamut’), established in Oslo (Norway), and TeamSystem SpA (‘TeamSystem’) established in Pesaro (Italy), represented by G.Berrisch, lawyer, requested leave to intervene in the case in support of the form of order sought by Microsoft.

21
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court on 20 August 2004, Exor AB (‘Exor’), established in Uppsala (Sweden), represented by S.Martínez Lage, H.Brokelmann and R.Allendesalazar Corcho, lawyers, requested leave to intervene in the case in support of the form of order sought by Microsoft.

22
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court on 31 August 2004, AudioBanner.com, trading as VideoBanner (‘VideoBanner’), established in Los Angeles, California (United States), represented by L.Alvizar, lawyer, requested leave to intervene in the case in support of the form of order sought by the Commission.

23
These applications for leave to intervene were served on the parties, who were invited to submit their written observations.

24
By letters received at the Registry of the Court on 28 July, 9 August and 21 October 2004, the Commission submitted written observations in which it expressed its objections to the applications lodged by DMD and others, Exor, Mamut and TeamSystem, and stated that it did not object to those lodged by FSFE, RealNetworks and SIIA. The Commission did not submit observations on those lodged by ACT, CompTIA and VideoBanner.

25
By letter received at the Registry of the Court on 12 October 2004, Microsoft submitted written observations in which it expressed its support for the applications lodged by ACT, CompTIA, DMD and others, Exor, Mamut and TeamSystem, and stated that it did not object to those lodged by FSFE, RealNetworks, SIIA and VideoBanner.

26
By letter received at the Registry of the Court on 13 December 2004, Microsoft applied for confidential treatment of certain documents of the file and produced a non-confidential version thereof.


The applications for leave to intervene

27
Pursuant to Article 115 of the Rules of Procedure, an application for leave to intervene must be made within a certain period and must comply with certain formal requirements.

28
In the present case, each application has been lodged in accordance with these requirements. In particular, the application lodged by DMD and others, which the Commission deemed inadmissible, complies with Article 115(2) of the Rules of Procedure, for the reasons set out at paragraph 51 below. Therefore, it falls to the President to examine whether each applicant is entitled to the right to intervene.

29
Pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, which applies to proceedings before the Court of First Instance by virtue of Article 53, first paragraph, thereof, the right to intervene in a case before the Court is open to any natural or legal person establishing an interest in the result of any case other than cases between Member States, between institutions of the Community or between Member States and institutions of the Community.

30
In the present case, in order to examine whether the applicants establish such an interest and are, therefore, entitled to intervene, a distinction is to be drawn between representative associations of undertakings, on the one hand, and other legal persons, on the other hand.

The applications lodged by representative associations of undertakings

31
The right to intervene is open to representative associations the object of which is to protect their members in cases raising questions of principle that are liable to affect those members (orders of the President of the Court of Justice of 17 June 1997 in Joined Cases C‑151/97P(I) and C‑157/97P(I) National Power and PowerGen v Commission [1997] ECRI‑3491, paragraph 66, and of 28 September 1998 in Case C‑151/98P Pharos v Commission [1998] ECRI‑5441, paragraph 6). This broad interpretation of the right of intervention open to associations, in such circumstances, is intended to facilitate the assessment of the case, whilst avoiding multiple individual interventions which would compromise the effectiveness and proper course of the procedure (order in National Power and PowerGen v Commission, paragraph 66).

32
In the present case, it falls to the President to examine whether the representative associations that have applied for leave to intervene in the case in support of the form of order sought, respectively, by Microsoft and by the Commission establish such an interest.

The applications for leave to intervene in the case in support of the form of order sought by Microsoft

–The application lodged by ACT

33
In support of its application, ACT submits that it is a trade association comprising almost 3000 members active in software development, system integration, information technology consultancy and e-commerce, and established worldwide. Thus, ACT may be regarded as representative of undertakings active in the information technology sector.

34
In addition, ACT provides evidence that its purpose is inter alia to ‘seek protection of [its members’] rights and privileges’ (Article II(D) of ACT’s Bylaws), to ‘enhance competition in and among the technology industries and to protect technology products, companies and industries from undue regulation or intervention that would undermine free and open competition by and among such products, companies and industries’ (Article II(F) of ACT’s Bylaws). Thus, the object of ACT includes that of protecting its members.

35
Finally, some of the questions raised by the case may be regarded as questions of principle affecting the functioning of the information technology sector and the forthcoming judgment may therefore affect the activities of ACT’s members in that sector.

36
These elements establish that ACT has an interest in the result of the case and must, therefore, be granted leave to intervene in the case in support of the form of order sought by Microsoft.

–The application lodged by CompTIA

37
In support of its application, CompTIA submits that it is a trade association comprising more than 16000 members active at all levels of the computer hardware and software industry as well as in information technology services, and established worldwide. Thus, CompTIA may be regarded as representative of undertakings active in the information technology sector.

38
In addition, CompTIA provides evidence that its purpose is inter alia to ‘establish a program for conveying the views of its members to the information technology industry, governmental agencies and the public’ (Article II of CompTIA’s Bylaws). This wording does not expressly state that CompTIA is entrusted with the protection of its members. Nevertheless, CompTIA also points out that its Board has adopted an antitrust policy statement, that it has acted as amicus curiæ before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Case No. 00-5212 United States v Microsoft Corporation, and that it has participated, as interested third party, in the proceedings before the Commission, as is confirmed by the Decision. In light of these elements, the object of CompTIA may be regarded as including the protection of its members.

39
Finally, some of the questions raised by the case may be regarded as questions of principle affecting the functioning of the information technology sector and the forthcoming judgment may therefore affect the activities of CompTIA’s members in that sector.

40
These elements establish that CompTIA has an interest in the result of the case and must, therefore, be granted leave to intervene in the case in support of the form of order sought by Microsoft.

The application for leave to intervene in the case in support of the form of order sought by the Commission

41
In support of its application to intervene, SIIA submits that it is a trade association comprising more than 600 members active in the field of software development and established worldwide. SIIA may thus be regarded as representative of undertakings active in the information technology sector.

42
In addition, SIIA provides evidence that its purposes include that of ‘represent[ing] the common business and public policy interests of the computer software and digital content industry’, of ‘protect[ing] the [i]ndustry’, and of engaging in ‘all lawful activities’ to that effect (Article II of SIIA’s Bylaws). This wording does not expressly state that SIIA is entrusted with the protection of its members. Nevertheless, SIIA also points out that it has participated, as interested third party, in the proceedings before the Commission, as is confirmed by the Decision. In light of this element, the object of SIIA may be regarded as including the protection of its members.

43
Finally, some of the questions raised by the case may be regarded as questions of principle affecting the functioning of the information technology sector and the forthcoming judgment may therefore affect the activities of SIIA’s members in that sector.

44
These elements establish that SIIA has an interest in the result of the case and must, therefore, be granted leave to intervene in the case in support of the form of order sought by the Commission.

The applications lodged by other legal persons

45
The right to intervene is open to any natural or legal person establishing an interest in the result of the case. This interest is to be defined in relation to the subject-matter of the case, which is framed by the form of order sought by the parties (order of the Court of Justice of 8 April 1981 in Joined Cases 197/80 to 200/80, 243/80, 245/80 and 247/80 Ludwigshafener Walzmühle v Council and Commission [1981] ECR 1041, at paragraph 7, and order in National Power and PowerGen v Commission, paragraph 31 above, paragraphs 51 and 52).

46
To be granted leave to intervene, a person must, therefore, establish a direct and existing interest in the grant of the form of order sought by the party whom it intends to support and, thus, in the ruling on the specific act whose annulment is sought (order of the Court of Justice of 25 November 1964 in Case 111/63 Lemmerz-Werk v High Authority [1965] ECR883, 884; order in National Power and PowerGen v Commission, paragraph 31 above, paragraph 53, and order of the President of the Court of Justice of 6 March 2003 in Case C‑186/02P Ramondín and Ramondín Cápsulas v Commission [2003] ECRI‑2415, paragraph 7). Indeed, if it were not so, any person alleging that a case is such as to affect its interests in any given way would be granted leave to intervene, with the result that the effectiveness and proper course of the procedure would be compromised (order in PowerGen and National Power v Commission, paragraph 31 above, paragraph 66; order of the Court of First Instance of 15 June 1993 in Joined Cases T‑97/92 and T‑111/92 Rijnoudt and Hocken v Commission [1993] ECRII‑587, paragraph 21, and order of the Court of First Instance of 8 December 1993 in Case T‑87/92 Kruidvat v Commission [1993] ECRII‑1375, paragraphs 13 and 14).

47
In the present case, it falls to the President to examine whether the persons that have applied to intervene in support of the form of order sought, respectively, by Microsoft and by the Commission, establish such an interest.

The applications for leave to intervene in the case in support of the form of order sought by Microsoft

–The application lodged by DMD and others

48
In support of their application, DMD and others contend that they have a direct and existing interest in the grant of the form of order sought by Microsoft and that they should, therefore, be granted leave to intervene in the case.

49
Microsoft supports this application. For its part, the Commission takes the view that it does not meet the formal requirements set out in Article 115(2) of the Rules of Procedure and that, in any case, DMD and others do not establish a direct and existing interest in the result of the case.

50
Article 115(2) of the Rules of Procedure provides, inter alia, that an application for leave to intervene shall contain a statement of the circumstances establishing the right to intervene and that Articles 43 and 44 shall apply. Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure provides, inter alia, that to every pleading there shall be annexed a file containing the documents relied on in support of it. Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure provides, inter alia, that an application shall state the subject-matter of the proceedings, a summary of the pleas-in-law on which it is based and, where appropriate, the nature of any evidence offered in support. It follows from a combined reading of these provisions that the circumstances establishing the right to intervene must be summarised in the application for leave to intervene itself, that this application may be complemented or evidenced, on specific points, by documents annexed thereto and that, therefore, a global reference to annexes cannot compensate for the lack of essential information in the application itself (see order of the Court of First Instance of 28 April 1993 in Case T‑85/92 De Hoe v Commission [1993] ECRII‑523, paragraphs 20 and 21).

51
In the present case, the application for leave to intervene meets these formal requirements. It states, briefly but clearly enough for the Commission and for the President to understand the gist of the applicants’ point of view, that their interest in the result of the case would stem from the fact that:

–
DMD and others provide products and services that rely, to a significant extent, upon Windows Media Player being bundled with Windows;

–
as a result of the appearance on the market of a version of Windows that is not bundled with Windows Media Player, DMD and others will be forced, either immediately or in the immediate future, to adapt these products and services in such a way that they can be used by consumers who rely on media players other than Windows Media Player;

–
DMD and others will specifically and seriously, if not disproportionately, suffer insofar as: i) they will face uncertainty as to how best to adapt to consumer choice; ii) they will incur increased costs; iii) they will loose the prospect of recouping the investments that they had initially made in reliance upon the bundled version of Windows and Windows Media Player.

52
As regards the merits of the application for leave to intervene, it should be recalled, first, that DMD and others must establish a direct and existing interest in the grant, by the Court, of the form of order sought by Microsoft (see paragraphs 45 and 46 above). Microsoft calls upon the Court to annul and/or reform a Decision that, inter alia:

–
finds that Microsoft abused its dominant position, in violation of Article 82 EC, by tying Windows Media Player with Windows, from May 1999 onwards (Article 2(b) of the Decision);

–
requires Microsoft to put an end to such behaviour, to refrain from repeating it or from engaging in equivalent behaviour, and to offer a full-functioning version of Windows which does not incorporate Windows Media Player, while retaining the right to offer a bundle thereof (Articles 4 and 6 of the Decision).

53
Second, it is to be noted that DMD and others describe themselves, in their application, as companies operating in the media, entertainment and telecommunication business. More specifically, the documents that complement this description reveal that:

–
DMD markets content protection and digital rights management server-side components and solutions;

–
MPS provides internet protocol-based international broadband television content;

–
PMT develops and markets digital set-top television technology;

–
Quantel provides computer hardware equipment to the broadcasting, cinema and television industry;

–
Tandberg develops and markets video products and systems across a variety of networks.

54
Third, it must be acknowledged that DMD and others’ products and services are offered on markets other than those affected by Microsoft’s conduct, but related thereto, and require reliance upon Windows Media Player being incorporated in Windows. Thus, the implementation of Article 4 and Article 6 of the Decision, that require Microsoft to offer an unbundled version of Windows, will in itself affect DMD and others’ business.

55
To that extent, DMD and others establish a direct and existing interest in the result of the case and must, therefore, be granted leave to intervene in the case in support of the form of order sought by Microsoft.

–The application lodged by Exor

56
In support of its application, Exor contends that it has a direct and existing interest in the grant of the form of order sought by Microsoft and that it should, therefore, be granted leave to intervene in the case.

57
Microsoft supports this application. For its part, the Commission takes the view that Exor does not establish a direct and existing interest in the result of the case.

58
Exor describes itself as an undertaking specialised in the development and support of websites, web pages and web design that rely on Windows Media Player being incorporated in Windows. It claims that the unbundling of these two products will have a substantial adverse effect on its present and future website development activity, as well as on its support activity. It takes the view that these prospects give rise to a direct and existing interest in the result of the case.

59
It must be acknowledged that Exor’s products and services are offered on markets other than those affected by Microsoft’s conduct, but related thereto, and require reliance upon Windows Media Player being incorporated in Windows. Thus, the implementation of Article 4 and Article 6 of the Decision, that require Microsoft to offer an unbundled version of Windows, will in itself affect Exor’s business.

60
To that extent, Exor establishes a direct and existing interest in the result of the case and must, therefore, be granted leave to intervene in the case in support of the form of order sought by Microsoft.

–The application lodged by Mamut and TeamSystem

61
In support of their application, Mamut and TeamSystem contend that they have a direct and existing interest in the grant of the form of order sought by Microsoft and that they should, therefore, be granted leave to intervene in the case.

62
Microsoft supports this application. For its part, the Commission takes the view that Mamut and TeamSystem do not establish a direct and existing interest in the result of the case.

63
Mamut and TeamSystem describe themselves as two independent software vendors whose main business is the development and marketing of software applications to be run on Windows client PC operating systems. They claim to conduct this business ‘with the specific belief and expectation that [these systems] will continue to provide them with a stable, consistent and reliable platform’. They add that they believe to be ‘illustrative of many other similarly situated companies that depend directly or indirectly on’ the bundling of Windows Media Player with Windows. More specifically, they state that the implementation of the Decision will require them to adapt their products in various ways and to incur various additional costs.

64
It must be acknowledged that Mamut and TeamSystem’s products are offered on markets other than those affected by Microsoft’s conduct, but related thereto, and require reliance upon Windows Media Player being incorporated in Windows. Thus, the implementation of Article 4 and Article 6 of the Decision, that require Microsoft to offer an unbundled version of Windows, will in itself affect Mamut and TeamSystem’s business.

65
To that extent, Mamut and TeamSystem establish a direct and existing interest in the result of the case and must, therefore, be granted leave to intervene in the case in support of the form of order sought by Microsoft.

The applications for leave to intervene in the case in support of the form of order sought by the Commission

–The application lodged by FSFE

66
In support of its application, FSFE states that it is an association but does not submit, and a fortiori does not prove, that it is a representative association the object of which is to protect its members within the meaning of the case-law cited at paragraph 31 above. Consequently, it is not in a position to rely on the wide interpretation of the right of intervention according to which such associations may intervene in cases raising questions of principle that are liable to affect their members. However, it is not precluded from establishing, in the same way as any other natural or legal persons, a direct and existing interest within the meaning of the case-law cited at paragraph 46 above.

67
In that regard, it follows from the case-law that the persons who compete, on the affected product market, with the author of a practice that was deemed to violate Article 81 EC or Article 82 EC by a decision of the Commission establish, as such, a direct and existing interest in the result of the case brought against that decision (see orders of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 23 July 1993 in Case T‑24/93 Compagnie maritime belge transports and Compagnie maritime belge v Commission, paragraph 5; of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 13 June 1994 in Case T‑542/93 Reti Televisive Italiane v Commission, paragraph 9, and of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 6 May 2004 in Case T‑271/03 Deutsche Telekom v Commission, paragraph 2).

68
In the present case, FSFE submits that its purpose includes, in essence, the promotion and distribution of what it terms ‘free software’ and, in particular, of the GNU/Linux operating system, which it labels as ‘the only viable alternative to software made by the dominant player’. The application for leave to intervene, read in combination with the Decision (recitals 27 and 87), reveals, first, that the GNU/Linux operating system consists of an open source kernel, or core operating system, that is developed by Linux and marketed under the GNU general public licence. It reveals, second, that the GNU general public licence is a software licensing schema created by FSFE. Thus, FSFE represents interests that are active on some of the very markets deemed relevant for the purpose of the Decision and affected by Microsoft’s conduct, and that compete with Microsoft on these markets. As such, it has participated, as interested third party, in the proceedings that led to the Decision.

69
These elements establish that FSFE has a direct and existing interest in the result of the case and must, therefore, be granted leave to intervene in the case in support of the form of order sought by the Commission.

–The application lodged by RealNetworks

70
In support of its application, RealNetworks submits, inter alia, that it develops and supplies software for the delivery of digital media services over computer networks, that it is therefore active on the product markets affected by Microsoft’s tying of Windows Media Player with Windows and that, in such a capacity, it applied for, and benefited from, the status of interested third party during the proceedings before the Commission.

71
These elements establish that RealNetworks has a direct and existing interest in the result of the case and must, therefore, be granted leave to intervene in the case in support of the form of order sought by the Commission.

–The application lodged by VideoBanner

72
In support of its application, VideoBanner submits, inter alia, that it develops and markets software for the streaming of digital media content over computer networks, that it is therefore active on the product market for streaming media players, that it is hampered by Microsoft’s tying of Windows Media Player with Windows, and that the Decision purports to remedy this situation.

73
These elements establish that VideoBanner has a direct and existing interest in the result of the case and must, therefore, be granted leave to intervene in the case in support of the form of order sought by the Commission.

The rights of the interveners

74
The notice referred to in Article 24(6) of the Rules of Procedure was published on 10 July 2004 (OJC179, p.18).

75
Thus, the interveners have all submitted their respective application for leave to intervene within the six weeks period prescribed by Article 115(1) of the Rules of Procedure, increased by the single period of ten days prescribed by Article 102(2).

76
Therefore, their procedural rights will be those set out in Article 116(2) to (4) of the Rules of Procedure.


The application for confidential treatment

77
As mentioned above, Microsoft has applied for confidential treatment of some of the documents to be served on the interveners. At the present stage, the copy thereof must therefore be limited to the non-confidential versions produced by Microsoft. If necessary, a decision on the merits of the application for confidential treatment will be taken at a later stage, in the light of the observations which may be lodged in that regard.


Costs

78
Article 87(1) of the Rules of Procedure provides that a decision as to costs shall be given in the final judgment or in the order which closes the proceedings. Therefore, it is appropriate, at this stage, to reserve the costs.


On those grounds,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE FOURTH CHAMBEROF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE



orders:

1.
Association for Competitive Technology, Inc. is granted leave to intervene in Case T‑201/04 in support of the form of order sought by Microsoft Corp.

2.
AudioBanner.com, trading as VideoBanner, is granted leave to intervene in Case T‑201/04 in support of the form of order sought by the Commission.

3.
DMDsecure.com BV, MPS Broadband AB, Pace Micro Technology plc, Quantel Ltd and Tandberg Television Ltd are granted leave to intervene in Case T‑201/04 in support of the form of order sought by Microsoft Corp.

4.
Exor AB is granted leave to intervene in Case T‑201/04 in support of the form of order sought by Microsoft Corp.

5.
Free Software Foundation Europe eV is granted leave to intervene in Case T‑201/04 in support of the form of order sought by the Commission.

6.
Mamut ASA and TeamSystem SpA are granted leave to intervene in Case T‑201/04 in support of the form of order sought by Microsoft Corp.

7.
RealNetworks, Inc. is granted leave to intervene in Case T‑201/04 in support of the form of order sought by the Commission.

8.
Software & Information Industry Association is granted leave to intervene in Case T‑201/04 in support of the form of order sought by the Commission.

9.
The Computing Technology Industry Association, Inc. is granted leave to intervene in Case T‑201/04 in support of the form of order sought by Microsoft Corp.

10.
The Registrar shall serve on the interveners a non-confidential version of every document served on the parties.

11.
The interveners shall be prescribed a period within which they may submit written observations on the application for confidential treatment. The decision on the merits of this application is reserved.

12.
The interveners shall be prescribed a period within which they may lodge a statement in intervention containing the pleas-in-law and arguments upon which they rely, without prejudice to the possibility of completing it at a later stage following a decision on the merits of the application for confidential treatment.

13.
Costs are reserved.

Luxembourg, 9 March 2005.

Registrar

President

H. Jung

H. Legal

1 –
Language of the case: English.

Vista, DOCUMENTO COMPLETO