Hes very good at pulling rabbits out of hats, but the rabbit disappears in the end.
But it's more than money that's at stake during this hearing.
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.
Microsoft are trying to turn this into an intellectual property case when it's not.
The judge was just being provocative.
There is no compliance yet and it is about time there was compliance.
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.
Microsoft has been playing games with the Commission from the beginning, but now it realizes its time is up.
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.
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.
In his final summing up he talked about ways forward by identifying the problems Microsoft must solve. That's not a plan.
There was no new plan.
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.
We believe the commission is right to insist on the rapid and efficient implementation of its antitrust decision.
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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
Microsoft is perhaps the most powerful company in the world. Companies have legitimate reasons to fear retribution for making their concerns known.
antitrust cases wrapped up in patent clothes.
Its very clear that there has to be solid documentation in place...The specs have to be fully documented.
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.
Itaas very clear that there has to be solid documentation in place...The specs have to be fully documented.