Setback For Cisco: EU Court Upholds Microsoft’s Skype Acquisition

Almost two years ago now Microsoft gained approval from all governments, including the European Union, on its acquisition of Skype.  The European Commission allowed Microsoft to buy Skype without having to make any concessions. Cisco was not happy about this, as they have their own video conferencing solutions, and has been against Microsoft’s purchase from the beginning. Cisco along with Italian fixed-line and Internet telephone provider Messagenet SpA went to the EU’s second highest court, in Lexembourg, to appeal the European Commission’s decision to approve the deal.

Cisco earlier argued that Microsoft’s acquisition of Skype created a monopoly and that the EC was wrong to approve the deal without demanding concessions from Microsoft. Today, European Union court rejected Cisco’s claims and upheld their decision to approve Microsoft/Skype deal.

“Microsoft’s acquisition of Skype is compatible with the internal market. The merger does not restrict competition either on the consumer video communications market or on the business video communications market,” the judges said.

Cisco can still appeal to the EU Court of Justice.

Source: Reuters

  • Bugbog

    Basically they want a leverage; if Microsoft includes (allows) integration of Skype in the Windows O.S. they should be required by Law to show alternatives, like Cisco’s [consumer] unknown offerings!

    • Rikikrik

      Why should they?? Google has more than 90% of the global mobile market and they do not show consumers any alternatives to Google apps and services. The EU’s decision to obligate Microsoft to show alternatives to IE is unfair. Apple has it’s own Mac computers with Safari and has been competing with Microsoft for years. Nothing is prohibiting or stopping Google with it’s 55 billion in cash to develop their own PC’s with their own OS and browsers, to compete with Microsoft. This applies to any other company like IBM, Lenovo, Dell etc. There also is Linux OS for example. Integration in products is a way of life, convenience, product development and efficiency. It is time for Microsoft to demand a review of the EU judgement.

      • freeman2

        The difference between IE and Google Services in Android is any manufacturer can take android and use it without shipping Google services. eg Amazon. You can’t do this with windows. In Android to license Google services is the decision of the OEM. The largest of which Samsung has just over 30% market. Hardly a monopoly position. In windows the decision lies with Microsoft who do have a monopoly position according to the EU.

        Microsoft should stop bitching and focus on making IE better.

        • Joe_HTH

          What the hell does any of this have to do with IE? This is not about web browsers. It’s about VOIP services. Your comparisons between Android and Windows is even more idiotic.

          IE has gotten a lot better, and Chrome keeps getting worse. If you do any research, you’ll see IE is gaining market share and Chrome is losing it, probably because of their refusal to support Windows 8.

        • Duk3togo

          Sort of accurate. Of you want the core android experience you need to abide by googles services. Otherwise you can use an alternative which is what amazon uses. Want google play you must go by google and you can’t use any other search engine. While Samsung might not have the entire market google still has about 90% of the mobile market.

          • Nham Thien Duong

            True, I bet if Windows Phone will get popular governments sueing for using Bing, I’ll bet the moment Windows 8 gets a higher marketshare you’ll hear governments saying ”Bing should have an alternative” and other non-sense, the standard only works against Microsoft.

    • Joe_HTH

      Oh great, so now you want people to be shown 50 different ballots for different services, making a Windows install or using a computer for the first time far more difficult.

      That is the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard of, just like the browser ballot. Here’s an idea, if you want to use something other than Skype, go download the damn thing and install.

      • Bugbog

        Do parse the comment before rushing to respond! I stated “They!!” Not ‘I’

        The Italian firm Messagenet SpA basically stated as much 2 years ago after the Skype purchase, commenting that Microsoft should be required to open up any thereafter created API’s to allow third-party’s to access it.

  • Drewidian

    Cisco (as well as all other Video Conference system manufacturers) is screwed. All MS has to do is make a Lync app for the Xbox One along with setting up a companion Windows 8/iOS/Android/WP smartglass enabled app that allows for synchronization of shared desktops, presentations, and any other app and they’ve effectively cornered that market. Cisco and everyone else can’t match a $500 self contained conferencing solution and they know it.

    • Bugbog

      That’s the point, and the problem! It makes a mockery of the cost of their enterprise solutions, which was why they wished to nip it in the bud before it can get off the ground. How can they now charge $2 – 10K for enterprise video-conferencing, when now it may only cost the the $500 cost of an XB1?

  • Nham Thien Duong

    Finally, I almost got the impression that the E.U.’s courts were very anti-Microsoft (with the Internet Explorer cases, while it won’t sue Apple for Safari).

  • Allan roger

    I personally feel that Skype being acquired by Microsoft will improve Skype`s performance much better. I use Skype for my entire social & personal interactions. For business meetings, I use RHUB web conferencing appliances as security is what I need as top priority.