|
|
| EU Commission Responds to Microsoft's Statement |
 |
|
Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 08:29 PM EST
|
The EU Commission has responded to Microsoft's statement regarding its filing today claiming compliance. Microsoft's statement said this: "Microsoft has complied fully with the technical documentation requirements imposed by a 2004 European Commission decision, and the Commission has ignored critical evidence in its haste to attack the company's compliance," the company said in a statement. You can read Microsoft's full press release here. One mysterious detail is this:
The company also filed with the Commission two independent expert reports by software system engineering professors who examined the technical documentation created by Microsoft.
“We conclude that the interoperability information as provided by Microsoft meets current industry standards, particularly in such a complex domain. We believe that it has provided complete and accurate information, to the extent that this can be reasonably achieved, covering protocols, dependencies and implicit knowledge,” noted a 49-page report authored by five computer science professors in the United Kingdom and Germany. Microsoft doesn't tell us who these mystery professors are. Of course, the EU Commission has its technical advisor, Neil Barrett, who has already said Microsoft's documentation was totally unfit for its purpose. Here's the EU Commission response in a press release, which seems significant enough to reproduce in full. I'm as cynical as the next person, or almost, but this is starting to look real to me.
***********************
Brussels, 15th February 2006
Competition: Commission confirms receipt of Microsoft’s reply to Statement of Objection
The Commission will consider carefully the response that Microsoft filed today following the Statement of Objections that the Commission adopted on 21 December 2005(see IP/05/1695). That Statement of Objections concerned Microsoft’s failure to comply with certain of its obligations under the March 2004 Commission Decision (see IP/04/382), and indicated the Commission’s preliminary view, supported by two reports from the Monitoring Trustee, that Microsoft had not yet provided complete and accurate specifications of the interoperability information which it is obliged to disclose under the March 2004 Commission decision. It is of course the European Commission that will decide whether Microsoft is compliant with the March 2004 Decision, and not Microsoft.
Following the rejection by the Court of First Instance of Microsoft’s request for interim measures on 22 December 2004 (see MEMO/04/305), Microsoft was obliged to comply with the March 2004 Commission decision. Since then the Commission has repeatedly reminded Microsoft of the need to provide complete and accurate specifications. To cite an example, in June 2005 the Commission sent to Microsoft a first report by the Commission’s experts, where very serious doubts were expressed as to the completeness and accuracy of the technical documentation.
In assessing the completeness and accuracy of the technical documentation, the Commission is being assisted by the Monitoring Trustee, a reputed British computer science professor whose appointment by the Commission was suggested by Microsoft (see IP/05/1215).
In its press statement issued today, Microsoft alleges that neither the Commission nor the Monitoring Trustee had read the latest version of the technical documents ”made available” by Microsoft (in Redmond USA) on 15 December. In fact this documentation was actually supplied on 26 December to the Commission, 11 days after the 15 December deadline and 5 days after the Statement of Objection was sent. As Microsoft's General Counsel had announced in a letter of 15 December 2005 this new technical documentation indeed addressed only "formatting issues" raised by the Monitoring Trustee. It was not therefore substantially different from that which the Commission examined in the context of the Statement of Objections.
Microsoft also announced to the press on 25 January 2005 that it was offering a source code licence to all potential licensees. On 10 February 2005, the Commission received a draft source code licence from Microsoft, which the Monitoring Trustee is considering and which is currently the subject of a market test.
The Commission notes that Microsoft is not obliged to disclose source code under the March 2004 Commission decision. As Commissioner Kroes pointed out at the time Microsoft made the announcement, source code is not necessarily a solution to respond to Microsoft’s failure to provide complete and accurate specifications. Source code could at best complement the provision of complete and accurate specifications, in line with the Commission 2004 Decision. The onus is on Microsoft to explain in their reply to the Statement of Objections to explain precisely how and why the source code offer is relevant to ensuring their compliance with the March 2004 Decision.
Microsoft has requested an Oral Hearing. The organisation of the hearing is a matter for the Hearing Officer, and a hearing is likely to take place in the coming weeks. As in any other investigation, the Commission is fully committed to guarantee due process.
After the Oral Hearing and after consulting the Advisory Committee of Member State Competition Authorities, the Commission may then issue a decision for non-compliance pursuant to Article 24(2) of Regulation 1/2003 imposing a fine on Microsoft for every day between 15 December 2005 and the date of that decision. In the case of continued non-compliance, the Commission may then take other steps to continue the daily fine until Microsoft complies with the March 2004 decision.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: overshoot on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 08:49 PM EST |
| I think we all know how by now. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: overshoot on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 09:05 PM EST |
| Assuming, of course ... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- 2006? - Authored by: AJWM on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 10:26 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 09:06 PM EST |
It is of course the European Commission that will decide
whether Microsoft is compliant with the March 2004 Decision, and not
Microsoft.
In the immortal word(s) of Emeril
Lagasse...
BAM!!
---
"When I say something, I put my
name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- EU Commission Responds to Microsoft's Statement - Authored by: nuthead on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 09:07 PM EST
- EU Commission Responds to Microsoft's Statement - Authored by: ChefBork on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 09:17 PM EST
- They can play lots of politics with that one - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 09:41 PM EST
- Fines???? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 01:12 AM EST
- Enforcement - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 04:49 AM EST
- It can and it will - Authored by: RPN on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 04:52 AM EST
- But how? - Authored by: CnocNaGortini on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 07:32 AM EST
- But how? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 07:39 AM EST
- But how? - Authored by: RPN on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 08:37 AM EST
- MS can't afford to abandon the EU - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 08:41 AM EST
- But how? - Authored by: LocoYokel on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 08:50 AM EST
- But how? - Authored by: John Hasler on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 09:12 AM EST
- But how? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 09:44 AM EST
- But how? - Authored by: ralevin on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 10:43 AM EST
- Easy targets - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 11:03 AM EST
- Fines???? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 19 2006 @ 03:02 AM EST
- just document office calls, was: EU Commission Responds to Microsoft's Statement - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 11:25 AM EST
- I love that line too =) - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 06:35 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: dyfet on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 09:07 PM EST |
| Having been beaten down on the European Constitution, it is quite possible the
Boys from Brussels are looking for other opportunities to assert their authority
and demonstrate their relevance. If so, Microsoft perhaps could not have chosen
a worse time to play their petty games.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bigbert on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 09:20 PM EST |
So MS doesn't accept the views of the expert they recommended? Why does this
sond like ANOTHER software company I can mention that won't accept the views of
its own expert? And in the same vein: so MS wants to tell the courts how the
world is -- just like TSG?
Seems to be some sort of disease...
---
4c 69 6e 75 78 20 52 75 6c 65 73 21[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kawabago on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 10:09 PM EST |
Microsoft footdrags over this documentation until about 6 months before Vista is
due to ship, then they release the correct interoperability information. That
should give Microsoft's competition 6 months to waste coming up with competing
products that won't work on Vista because Vista will have the interoperability
completely redesigned to get around the anti-trust ruling. Any company that
buys into this scam will just be wasting time and resources.
Fortunately, I don't think anyone will be buying Vista anyway so it won't matter
all that much. Microsoft's death throes next year should be very entertaining.
With a little luck, maybe a lot, their stock price will plummet to the point
that Netscape can buy them out. Wouldn't that be a fine end to the whole sordid
Microsoft era?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blokey on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 10:13 PM EST |
| Microsoft doesn't tell us who these mystery professors are Sounds
like
SCO's Rocket Scientists are moonlighting..... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jsusanka on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 10:23 PM EST |
"Microsoft's death throes next year should be very entertaining. "
don't get my hopes up. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 10:28 PM EST |
I think to fine should be doubled each day. Within a month MS would be
bankrupted.
DarkSound[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Sadly - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 11:07 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 11:01 PM EST |
what do you mean that this is looking very real? you're prolly seeing a lot more
than i am, so i'm curious. over here, it looks like a lot of strong words, but
we've seen that before. we've seen our own government order the breakup of MS
only to have it reverted on a technicality appeal. the EU yanked some pocket
change from MS and has failed to make them comply with their orders. they also
gave MS a free pass by letting MS continue to lock out FLOSS, which means that
MS won, as far as I'm concerned. who else really competes with them? Sun? haha.
maybe they'll get fined again... they write a check. big deal. as someone else
has pointed out above... even **IF** the EU can get MS to comply with their
order from almost two years ago, it will be just in time for it to be
irrelevant. all I can see here is the EU making some quick cash and MS going
back to business as usual. are you sure you're as cynical as the rest of us? ;) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- elabotre pj? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 12:17 AM EST
- elabotre pj? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 02:14 AM EST
- elabotre pj? - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 04:09 AM EST
- elabotre pj? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 04:26 AM EST
- elabotre pj? - Authored by: Rob M on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 08:35 AM EST
- elabotre pj? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 02:13 AM EST
- elabotre pj? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 09:30 AM EST
- elabotre pj? - Authored by: DL on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 10:03 AM EST
- elabotre pj? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 12:54 PM EST
- Escape fines by providing backdoors and encryption keys - Authored by: Superbowl H5N1 on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 07:55 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 02:46 AM EST |
The EU should consider applying the daily penalty, until
Microsoft complies, but also the EU should ban shipping of
Vista in Europe until Microsoft has complied to EU's 100%
satisfactiion on the documentation for both Microsoft's
current OSes and Vista.
Now that would be an effective incentive to persuade
Microsoft to comply.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 03:41 AM EST |
The company also filed with the Commission two independent expert
reports by software system engineering professors who examined the technical
documentation created by Microsoft.
Given Microsofts history of
selective honesty on their 3rd party "Get the Facts" campaign, do MS actually
expect the EU to take the claim that 2 "independent" (publically unidentified)
professors have found the documentation acceptable?
More to the
point, if the court has nominated someone to do the job, why would they listen
to a company that has been found guilty of a rather serious breach of trust on
several continents (and to a lesser extent, found very misleading on GtF) when
they say "trust us"?
Especially on matters regarding competition.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 04:48 AM EST |
1. Given MS' little dance we see here I'm tempted to say the Commission
already got quite a bit of Microsoft's attention...
2. I think the parent
poster misrepresents the motivation for the imminent EU fines. They are
not primarily intended to "milk the cash cow" or to ruin MS' business.
Instead they are meant to contribute (by building up a some pressure) to a
simple goal: to get Microsoft to deliver some usable interoperability
specification. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Cash cow? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 07:02 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 07:20 AM EST |
"Dump Europeans"!!!???
And just what has the US Justice Department imposed on Microsoft to date?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 07:57 AM EST |
| Excellent! Someone in a position of authority actually understands why source
code is not a specification, and why a specification is exactly what is
required here, or indeed anywhere that an interface needs to be defined. A lot
of so-called software developers, and others, have failed to grasp that point,
and not just in connection with this matter. Maybe we are entering a new age
of specification awareness? If so, one result is that we will actually get
better software. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 08:31 AM EST |
| Maybe the EU is just playing for some sort of under-the-table bribes.
Hey, it's
happened before, and Microsoft can spread more money around the EU to "buy" a
Redmond-friendly tech policy than Saddam Hussein had to spread around to buy EU
foreign policy.
But to think that the EU can't be bought - that's naive. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 08:35 AM EST |
Until Andew Tridgell and Jeremy Allison (of Samba fame) bless it, I won't be
satisfied it's good enough.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Prototrm on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 09:24 AM EST |
I'd like to bet you that Microsoft is one of those companies that doesn't
believe in functional or technical specifications for their software. When new
developers are hired, they are pointed to the source code, and told "that's
the only documentation you need".
Been there. Done that. Got the T-Shirt. (only not with Microsoft)
Why do you think Microsoft has so much difficulty with bugs and vulnerabilities?
This same lack of documentation will doom Vista as well, despite hurculean
efforts to re-write Windows code to be more secure.
They should just come right out and confess to the EU that they have no
technical documentation, and no way to develop any within a reasonable time.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 10:34 AM EST |
This is from a keynote by Bill Gates at the The 2005 Microsoft Government
Leaders Forum Europe:
High-level research on software issues is
done out of Cambridge,
UK, and there's a cooperative research centre in Germany
where Microsoft works
with other technology companies, particularly European
companies, to come up
with new breakthroughs.
Makes it easy to
find five "professors" to create a small report supporting the
companies
position. This is probably why the report and the authors' names
were withheld.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 02:00 PM EST |
It's SCO's deep divers - they've resurfaced at last!!!
Only people able to find "millions of lines of infringing code" in
Linux could have the vast intellect and analytical expertise needed understand
Microsoft's protocol "documentation".
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nivag on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 05:35 PM EST |
I think it important that all significant media outlets be educated and not
allowed to promulgate errors that harm us, see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4717474.stm
Under the heading "Microsoft hits back at EU threats" they write:
"[...]
It was given until Wednesday to prove it had provided rivals with computer codes
that would let them develop products to work with Windows systems.
[...]"
I suggest that Goklawrians contact the BBC using the contacts link at the bottom
of their news web pages, and politely inform them of the errors. I have already
done so, but if more people do, then this will be great.
-Nivag[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 20 2006 @ 10:56 AM EST |
http:/
/www.computerworld.com/printthis/2006/0,4814,108846,00.html
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
