THE surprise in yesterday’s EU court ruling against Microsoft was not that the biggest kid on the technology block lost the day. The surprise was to see Microsoft so intent on flogging what increasingly looks like a thoroughly dead horse.

Microsoft, contrary to the entrenched opinions of an alarmingly wide constituency of people, is not some computer-age Beelzebub. It should attract nothing but praise for the way it identified, inhabited and then came to dominate the most important growth industry of the past 20 or 30 years.

Some observers, with some justification, reckon that the standards set by Microsoft for the software it has written over the past three decades falls short of the best that might have been developed. But the plain fact is that it has created a set of products that have both revolutionised and vastly improved the way we live and work.

Some of the achievement may have come courtesy of Microsoft’s skill in neutralising competitive threats. Some of the credit lies with Lady Luck. But mostly it is down to intelligent innovation and hard work.

Yes, Microsoft has a right — and an obligation to its shareholders — to do everything in its power to protect its franchise. It needs to minimise the risk that the competition authorities insist on some sort of break-up or wholesale restructuring of the company. That would be unfair because Microsoft has created, rather than bought or been given, its monopolistic position. It would also be wrong because it would impede the company’s ability to continue delivering product and service enhancements.

Yes, there is a danger that the EU rulings will make it more difficult for Microsoft to give consumers a complete product. It can be reasonably be argued that a buyer of a personal computer will want all the kit that enables it to perform all functions — from word processing through internet connection and the audio-visual capabilities that lie at the heart of this case.

Car buyers would be caused unbearable inconvenience if they were obliged to buy the engine separately from the chassis. So why should Microsoft be obliged to split up its all-singing, all-dancing products? British drinkers, meanwhile, have suffered a significant reduction in choice since the Beer Order regulations of 1989 demanded that brewing be separated from retailing of beer.

It is clearly tempting for Microsoft to chase the case to the bitter end because of the chance that it might see a downward revision to the €497 million (£347 million) fine levied by the European Commission. That is a lot of money, even by the standards of this multibillion enterprise.

It may also be sensible for Microsoft to continue with its appeal in order to learn as much as possible about the attitudes of the competition authorities. That will help it to judge whether future initiatives will raise regulatory hackles.

Yet despite all that, it is still hard to understand why Microsoft is so intent on pursuing the case. For one thing the EU court appears set in its view that the ruling confirmed yesterday is the right one. Simple common sense dictates that Microsoft should only pick fights it can win.

More importantly, the company is big enough and successful enough to handle the sort of competition the EU court has in mind. It is, remember, only being asked to give consumers a choice of audio-visual software.

A truly impressive business — which is what Microsoft appears to be — would be confident that its products could outshine the best that the rest could offer.

A more open competitive environment will also assist Microsoft to continue developing world class products. Getting to a pre-eminent market position is one thing. Staying there is another. Microsoft should welcome all the help it can get.

Times Recommends

• Lies and cover-up at MG Rover exposed by report
• High oil prices push manufacturing costs up
• Primark founder steps down as chief executive