There is probably a bit of rejoicing in the halls of the Googleplex this morning since word came down that the European Court of First Instance - the European Union's equivalent of the U.S. Court of Appeals - rejected Microsoft's appeal of a 2004 decision that imposed a fine of $689.4 million for anticompetitive behavior, the highest such fine in the young history of the European court.

According to the New York Times, the statement from the judge was stark: "The court finds the commission did not err in assessing the gravity and duration of the infringement and did not err in setting the amount of the fine. Since the abuse of a dominant position is confirmed by the court, the amount of the fine remains unchanged."

While Microsoft has said in the past it would appeal any unfavorable decision to the European Court of Justice - the top court in the EU - a company spokesman only promised to weigh the options, the Times said.

Now, the key language in the decision seems to be "abuse of a dominant position." The original court decision hinged on the widespread selling of Windows PCs with the Windows Media software pre-installed (and set as a default) and not releasing to competitors proprietary server protocols that are needed to make software work on the Windows system. These are similar issues to what was involved in the U.S. antitrust suit, for which Microsoft ultimate was given the equivalent of wearing an ankle bracelet. The EU hasn't been as generous to Redmond, and Microsoft has racked up nearly?1 billion in fines since the case started in 1998.

The open source movement is celebrating the victory, but pointing out that it doesn't go far enough. As one poster to Slashdot.org points out: "The biggest problem is that it took 10 years to get to this point, and Microsoft still hasn't disclosed the specs for how to make interoperable products."

The turf has shifted somewhat since then, and while I would argue the EU has the right to enforce its own laws, most judicial rulings (both here and abroad) are - of necessity - a bit behind the times, and the next legislative effort needs to be a bit more current, especially in the fast-changing world of technology.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the EU is right, and blah-blah-blah. What's different this time around? Windows is still the dominant operating system for the PC world. It is virtually impossible to walk into a store and buy a PC (not a Mac) that does not have Windows pre-installed on it. And Windows Media. And Internet Explorer. And you might as well buy Microsoft Office as well, because that's what everyone else is using. (Yes, there's nothing stopping you from downloading and running other competing software products, but that requires a conscious effort on the part of the user, something the average home user isn't typically savvy about doing.) The advent of open source operating systems, despite years of efforts of make user-friendly versions of Linux available, is still confined to the technically savvy crowd, for whom phrases such as "compiling a kernel" are everyday conversation. That's a tiny percentage of market share. Last time I checked, Apple had about a 3 percent share of the marketplace. Result: If you want a computer in the U.S., no matter who makes it, you're buying Microsoft. That's a monopoly.

But there is competition, and Google is perhaps the best example of that. "What," you say, "you mean Google has a competing operating system?" No. But they're doing the next best thing, which is to remove the operating system from the picture. You see, Windows does a lot of things, but the average user doesn't really need a lot of it, just something that allows them to run all those other programs, of which many originate in Redmond. If you need Microsoft Office to run your business or run on your home computer, if you need IE to surf the web, if you need Grand Theft Auto to work out your issues toward society, those are all perfectly legitimate reasons to buy those software packages. But instead of just a box to run them, you're also having to buy the OS. If you could just buy the box and not worry about the OS and pay a correspondingly lower price, why wouldn't you? The applications are used to drive the sales of Windows. And yes, a computer needs an operating system.

This is where Google comes in. Google, as an immensely successful search engine, doesn't need an operating system. Yes, your PC at home or work probably runs on Windows, and that's how you get to Google. But your cell phone might not have a version of Windows running on it. The computer in a coffee house or other public venue might not have Windows - increasingly, a Web terminal is all you need when you're out and about. Laptop sales are through the roof, and putting wi-fi nodes in public spaces is all the rage, but a public Web terminal might be easier to monetize, and more useful to the masses of people who don't want to carry their laptop around everywhere they go, but want to check the news or their e-mail.