Justice GS Singhvi on Monday admitted the law firm’s appeal against a Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) decision absolving Microsoft of anti-competitive behaviour.
Amarchand Mangaldas Delhi competition partner Naval Chopra and associate Yaman Verma with senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi are acting for the Redmond-based software giant’s Indian subsidiary.
Singhania & Partners had complained to the Competition Commission of India (CCI) in 2010 that Microsoft was abusing its dominant position in the market, by offering lower-price software to original equipment manufacturers (OEM) than it did in volume licensing to law firms or other businesses, which were forced to buy allegedly overpriced volume licences.
After the CCI rejected Singhania’s case on 30 June 2011, the firm, which was then represented by Seth Dua & Associates in the CCI, independently approached the Competition Appellate Tribunal (Compat) which on 22 September 2011 admitted its appeal.
On 9 October 2012, the Compat dismissed Singhania’s appeal, stating that Microsoft had legitimately sold differently designed software at different prices, that it had the right to sell a different licence to an OEM than to an end-user, and that it could rightfully refuse transferring the software sold with one particular machine to another old machine.
Singhania has now approached the Supreme Court asserting that Microsoft products – Windows Vista and Microsoft Office 2007 – of which differently licensed versions were sold (volume and OEM) were identical products except for the cost.
It claims that Microsoft product dealers sell both licence versions to different customers as per demand, according to the Financial Express.
Comments
We generally mention the law firm before the senior advocate, however. Arguable about who has done more work in a matter but that's just the way we do things by convention now.
Do you think this is the wrong approach?
The use of the word xyz and abc with Sr. Counsel indicates that Sr. Counsel did not argue but was standing with them assisting them with pagination points and caselaw during arguments.
i.e. if one were to give the same meaning to the langauge used by yourself as one would to a case law.
But whose nit picking, you asked and so we answered :)
And yes; if its about who does more work, the decades of experience put together with thousands of such briefs is something that you can't take away from counsels. Its just more appropriate according to me to put the names of counsels first which may be followed by the ones who assist him in a matter.
And yes; if its about who does more work, the decades of experience put together with thousands of such briefs is something that you can't take away from counsels. Its just more appropriate according to me to put the names of counsels first which may be followed by the ones who assist him in a matter.[/quote]
Litigation boy...woohooo.. [drumroll to infinity]
What's wrong with being a litigator?