BML 5.65 Decreased By ▼ -0.16 (-2.75%)
BOP 15.07 Increased By ▲ 0.81 (5.68%)
CNERGY 7.22 Increased By ▲ 0.24 (3.44%)
CPHL 89.39 Increased By ▲ 0.82 (0.93%)
DCL 13.63 Increased By ▲ 0.74 (5.74%)
DGKC 207.47 Increased By ▲ 18.86 (10%)
FCCL 55.37 Increased By ▲ 4.30 (8.42%)
FFL 16.77 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.12%)
GCIL 28.11 Increased By ▲ 0.33 (1.19%)
HUBC 164.27 Increased By ▲ 1.42 (0.87%)
KEL 5.32 Increased By ▲ 0.15 (2.9%)
KOSM 6.71 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.59%)
LOTCHEM 21.95 Increased By ▲ 0.35 (1.62%)
MLCF 102.68 Increased By ▲ 6.82 (7.11%)
NBP 148.43 Decreased By ▼ -0.60 (-0.4%)
PAEL 47.76 Increased By ▲ 0.93 (1.99%)
PIAHCLA 19.52 Decreased By ▼ -0.28 (-1.41%)
PIBTL 12.79 Increased By ▲ 0.63 (5.18%)
POWER 17.00 Increased By ▲ 1.10 (6.92%)
PPL 177.31 Decreased By ▼ -0.23 (-0.13%)
PREMA 40.16 Decreased By ▼ -0.75 (-1.83%)
PRL 30.63 Increased By ▲ 0.24 (0.79%)
PTC 22.80 Decreased By ▼ -0.29 (-1.26%)
SNGP 114.59 Decreased By ▼ -0.56 (-0.49%)
SSGC 40.02 Decreased By ▼ -0.13 (-0.32%)
TELE 8.09 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.49%)
TPLP 10.19 Decreased By ▼ -0.16 (-1.55%)
TREET 23.72 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-0.34%)
TRG 57.11 Decreased By ▼ -0.11 (-0.19%)
WTL 1.45 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.69%)
BML 5.65 Decreased By ▼ -0.16 (-2.75%)
BOP 15.07 Increased By ▲ 0.81 (5.68%)
CNERGY 7.22 Increased By ▲ 0.24 (3.44%)
CPHL 89.39 Increased By ▲ 0.82 (0.93%)
DCL 13.63 Increased By ▲ 0.74 (5.74%)
DGKC 207.47 Increased By ▲ 18.86 (10%)
FCCL 55.37 Increased By ▲ 4.30 (8.42%)
FFL 16.77 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.12%)
GCIL 28.11 Increased By ▲ 0.33 (1.19%)
HUBC 164.27 Increased By ▲ 1.42 (0.87%)
KEL 5.32 Increased By ▲ 0.15 (2.9%)
KOSM 6.71 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.59%)
LOTCHEM 21.95 Increased By ▲ 0.35 (1.62%)
MLCF 102.68 Increased By ▲ 6.82 (7.11%)
NBP 148.43 Decreased By ▼ -0.60 (-0.4%)
PAEL 47.76 Increased By ▲ 0.93 (1.99%)
PIAHCLA 19.52 Decreased By ▼ -0.28 (-1.41%)
PIBTL 12.79 Increased By ▲ 0.63 (5.18%)
POWER 17.00 Increased By ▲ 1.10 (6.92%)
PPL 177.31 Decreased By ▼ -0.23 (-0.13%)
PREMA 40.16 Decreased By ▼ -0.75 (-1.83%)
PRL 30.63 Increased By ▲ 0.24 (0.79%)
PTC 22.80 Decreased By ▼ -0.29 (-1.26%)
SNGP 114.59 Decreased By ▼ -0.56 (-0.49%)
SSGC 40.02 Decreased By ▼ -0.13 (-0.32%)
TELE 8.09 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.49%)
TPLP 10.19 Decreased By ▼ -0.16 (-1.55%)
TREET 23.72 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-0.34%)
TRG 57.11 Decreased By ▼ -0.11 (-0.19%)
WTL 1.45 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.69%)
BR100 15,085 Increased By 112.5 (0.75%)
BR30 44,012 Increased By 987.7 (2.3%)
KSE100 148,618 Increased By 1274.3 (0.86%)
KSE30 45,248 Increased By 370.7 (0.83%)

The head of the US Justice Department anti-trust division praised his European Commission counterparts on Monday - but not their approach to the Microsoft Corp case.
The European Commission ruled in March that Microsoft violated European antitrust law, fined it 497 million euros ($612.3 million) and ordered it to change the way it does business. The company plans to appeal that ruling this week.
R. Hewitt Pate, head of the Justice Department antitrust division, told a meeting of antitrust experts that Competition Commissioner Mario Monti's work is vital and will be remembered for decades, but Europe and America approached Microsoft differently.
"We have a continued potential for divergence," Pate said, speaking of Microsoft and some other cases.
Pate was careful to avoid criticism of Monti or any of his tactics - the two men said they had talked on the phone often while Monti was deciding Microsoft - but said they were separated by differing approaches to antitrust.
He said antitrust enforcers may want to be aggressive against monopolists but must avoid "rules whose applications to the general run of cases might have unwanted effects."
A few minutes later, Monti said that "where dominant companies can use their market power to win on the market for reasons that are not related to their products, prices or qualities then that is where we may consider intervening." He said competition must be on the merits of products.
Pate attributed the differences to variance in European-US legal principles, but some experts say the approach of the Bush administration itself represents a divergence from the approach of the Clinton administration to Microsoft.
The Clinton administration aggressively pursued the Microsoft case, refused to settle and won in the court of appeals, which narrowed the scope of the case. Pate's predecessor in the Bush administration made an agreement with Microsoft on remedies, rather than imposing them.

Copyright Reuters, 2004

Comments

Comments are closed.