[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 167 (Wednesday, December 21, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14303-S14304]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        KOREAN FAIR TRADE COMMISSION DECISION AGAINST MICROSOFT

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today regarding the December 7 
Korean Fair Trade Commission, KFTC, decision against Microsoft. A major 
employer in Washington, Microsoft is being unfairly penalized by Korea, 
but this decision goes well beyond Microsoft as the Korean Fair Trade 
Commission's decision is ultimately a decision against free and fair 
trade.
  When the European Commission issued its competition decision against 
Microsoft in March 2004, I was one of many Members who expressed 
serious concerns about the decision and its impact on one of America's 
most innovative companies and its workers. Like many of my colleagues, 
however, I was also alarmed at the broader policy implications of the 
decision--that Europe would adopt a decision whose negative impact on 
trade was so clear, and which diverged so markedly from the Department 
of Justice's remedy addressing the same conduct.
  I believe that the December 7 decision of the Korean Fair Trade 
Commission against Microsoft is yet another warning sign that our 
trading partners are limiting competition in order to benefit their 
domestic interests. In this case, the Korean Fair Trade Commission not 
only followed the EU's market-distorting, anticonsumer approach, but 
appears to have gone substantially further than the EU remedies in 
several respects. The KFTC's decision makes me wonder whether the 
Microsoft case is not a unique case but instead indicates the beginning 
of a trend among some of our key trading partners to use competition 
law as a means to pursue protectionist agendas or advance domestic 
industrial policy goals. If so, this should be of tremendous concern to 
every member of this body.
  Last week I wrote to U.S. Trade Representative Portman about this 
issue, and I would like to ask unanimous consent to place that letter 
into the record.
  The letter urges Ambassador Portman to work with others in the 
administration--including at the White House and the Departments of 
Justice, State, and Commerce--to develop and implement mechanisms for 
addressing these issues in a more coherent and effective fashion. At 
the same time, I urged Ambassador Portman to work with others in the 
administration to take whatever steps are still available to advance 
the U.S. perspective in the Microsoft case, so that the

[[Page S14304]]

anticonsumer, anti-innovation decisions do not establish a precedent 
that harms U.S. competitiveness for years to come.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                Washington, DC, December 12, 2005.
     Hon. Rob Portman,
     U.S. Trade Representative,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Ambassador Portman: When the European Commission 
     issued its competition decision against Microsoft in March 
     2004, I was one of many Members who expressed serious 
     concerns about the decision and its impact on one of 
     America's most innovative companies and its workers. Like 
     many of my colleagues, however, I was also alarmed at the 
     broader policy implications of the decision--that Europe 
     would adopt a decision whose negative impact on trade was so 
     clear, and which diverged so markedly from the Department of 
     Justice's remedy addressing the same conduct. At the time, my 
     hope was that the Commission's decision was the counter-
     example that proved the rule--namely, that comity was alive 
     and well among the U.S. and its trading partners, and that 
     the international community was increasingly moving towards 
     adopting U.S.-style antitrust principles and rules.
       Recent developments, however, suggest otherwise. 
     Specifically, the December 7 decision of the Korean Fair 
     Trade Commission (KFTC) against Microsoft--in which the KFTC 
     not only followed the EU's market-distorting, anti-consumer 
     approach, but appears to have gone substantially further than 
     the EU remedies in several respects--makes me wonder whether 
     the Microsoft case is not a unique case, but instead 
     indicates the beginning of a trend among some of our key 
     trading partners to use competition law as a means to pursue 
     protectionist agendas or advance domestic industrial policy 
     goals. If so, this should be of tremendous concern to the 
     United States and your office.
       I understand that your Office, and you personally, have 
     been following this issue closely, and that you and other 
     USTR representatives have expressed the Administration's 
     strong concerns on these issues with your Korean counterparts 
     on more than one occasion. As a Member who represents a State 
     with dozens of leading innovative companies employing several 
     hundreds of thousands of workers, please know that these 
     efforts are greatly appreciated. Clearly, however, the 
     results to date are not what we would have hoped.
       I am deeply concerned that, without a strategy for 
     addressing these issues more effectively--not only in the EU 
     and Korea, but also more broadly--leading U.S. firms will 
     increasingly face competition rulings in foreign nations that 
     have little or no economic justification, but that make it 
     much more difficult for U.S. industry to compete in global 
     markets. With all of the other challenges facing the global 
     trading regime at the moment, the United States can ill 
     afford yet another barrier denying U.S. industry and workers 
     the benefits of international trade.
       I would therefore urge you to work with others in the 
     Administration--including at the White House and the 
     Departments of Justice, State, and Commerce--to develop and 
     implement mechanisms for addressing these issues in a more 
     coherent and effective fashion. At the same time, I would 
     urge you and others in the Administration to take whatever 
     steps are still available to you to advance the U.S. 
     perspective in the Microsoft case, so that the anti-consumer, 
     anti-innovation decisions do not establish a precedent that 
     harms U.S. competitiveness for years to come.
       I would appreciate your response to this letter and look 
     forward to continuing our dialogue on these issues in the 
     months ahead.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Patty Murray,
     U.S. Senator.

                          ____________________