We have evidence that Microsoft has refused to disclose formatting and other information. Word processing, spreadsheets and presentation programs can't achieve full interoperability with Microsoft Office.
Microsoft has been playing games with the Commission from the beginning, but now it realizes its time is up.
Microsoft only started mentioning intellectual property rights once it was clear it would lose the case two years ago. It's an after-the-facts strategy and I hope the judge will see it for what it is.
The judge was just being provocative.
In his final summing up he talked about ways forward by identifying the problems Microsoft must solve. That's not a plan.
There is no compliance yet and it is about time there was compliance.
Most software makers reveal for free the sort of information Microsoft is being ordered to license, because anyone not in a monopoly situation has every interest in making their software as widely available as possible.
Market developments have validated the Commission's concerns. It is vital that the court confirms the Media Player decision because it provides a legal precedent that could be used to prevent Microsoft continuing its abusive bundling practices in future.
But it's more than money that's at stake during this hearing.
For the last eight years, the commission has been extremely careful to follow every procedural rule to the letter. From a legal point of view, everything I know indicates the commission has been very correct.
Microsoft is perhaps the most powerful company in the world. Companies have legitimate reasons to fear retribution for making their concerns known.
In other words, exactly what the commission predicted would occur as a result of Microsoft's illegal bundling behavior has occurred Real has been marginalized, ... The lesson is that the commission is right to have found Microsoft to have engaged in illegal conduct, but that it erred in taking so long to decide the case and in imposing an ineffective remedy.
There's a striking similarity between Microsoft's efforts to evade compliance with the European decision and its failure to properly comply with the U.S. settlement.
Microsoft is repeatedly engaging in clearly illegal, anti-competitive behavior because the benefits of extinguishing competition clearly outweigh the costs.
It's merely, entirely and completely a public relations ploy to try to divert attention from the extremely strong case the commission has against Microsoft for failure to comply with the commission's decision.
Microsoft are trying to turn this into an intellectual property case when it's not.
We believe the commission is right to insist on the rapid and efficient implementation of its antitrust decision.
Software companies know how to write interface specifications to ensure interoperability with other companies' products. They do it all the time and so does Microsoft. But they're not doing it here because they don't want to.
Its very clear that there has to be solid documentation in place...The specs have to be fully documented.
The draft law does a good job in preserving and solidifying the country of origin principle for e-commerce, but it is not good news for offline publishers.
antitrust cases wrapped up in patent clothes.
Microsoft has not given up its exclusionary policies...Indeed any settlement in fact validates the Commission's case. Since the Commission is not bound by any private settlement, ECIS therefore urges the Commission to vigorously defend its 2004 Decision.
Hes very good at pulling rabbits out of hats, but the rabbit disappears in the end.
It's a typical Microsoft tactic to draw things out as much as possible, and in a way it's working because E.C.I.S. is so busy working on the appeal that it hasn't had time to submit a fresh complaint against Microsoft.
Microsoft is trying to turn this into an intellectual property case when it's not... This is a case about abuse of a dominant position, about refusing to provide information to vendors.
The meaningfulness of the 2004 ruling is at stake here. So far no one has bought a license to see Microsoft's technical documentation. There is a danger that this side of the case could be rendered meaningless.
Microsoft is merely trying to delay the proceedings and to avoid effective implementation of the commission's decision until it has no meaning at all.
The credibility of the Commission is at stake, and the meaningfulness of the decision is at stake, so I don't think the Commission is going to allow delay.
There was no new plan.
More Thomas Vinje Quotations (Based on Topics)
Law & Regulation - Planning - Decision Making - Time - Product - Letters - Facts - Countries - Media & News - Future - Danger & Risk - World - View All Thomas Vinje Quotations
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -