Source: Microsoft not complying with EU

EU committee's ruling paves the way for fines of up to $2.56 million a day.

The story "Source: Microsoft not complying with EU" published July 3, 2006 at 11:55 AM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from Reuters expires after 30 days.

[news_reader]

Easy money.

Why wouldn't they sue?

It is worth noting that non-Europeans don't have trouble writing software that runs smoothy on Windows. ;)

[jabbotts]

non-euro coders have just as much trouble

If you have more than windows installed with office you've seen an increase in blue screens. Infact, you'll see a direct relation between third party applications (ie. not ms coded) and your windows stability. The real question is why non-euro companies have not questioned microsoft's practice of delaying release of information system inter-operability until they've had a good headstart in providing supporting user apps.

[Lynn_S]

Simple minds ...

[i]"It is worth noting that non-Europeans don't have trouble writing software that runs smoothy on Windows. ;)"[/i]

Then it might also be worth noting that no European companies brought charges against MS. The suit was started based on complaints from U.S. companies.

Apparently these non-Euros were able to write software but unable to sell it to enough folks to justify doing product development.

[Lynn_S]

Simple minds ...

[i]"It is worth noting that non-Europeans don't have trouble writing software that runs smoothy on Windows. ;)"[/i]

Then it might also be worth noting that no European companies brought charges against MS. The suit was started based on complaints from U.S. companies.

Apparently these non-Euros were able to write software but unable to sell it to enough folks to justify doing product development.

[jabbotts]

but they have just as much trouble writting for winblows

Non-euro coders have just as much trouble with windows. While most problems with windows to stem from it's focus on being pretty and supporting the bugs written into everything since dos, the rest of the problems are from third-party incompatabilities. It's a closed system and everyone is stuck writting software based on best guesses and crumbs of information from Redmond.

Again, the EUs problem as I understand it is that MS writes the OS, the server software and the client software. If they had there own way, you wouldn't be able to run non-MS software on your computer. By law, they have to allow third-party software production but being the source of the information, they also have the luggury of arbitrarily changing how the software inter-operates constantly manufacturing and environment where third-parties have to pay catchup. The third party get's the changes late having a shorter window to provide functional software before the next great MS "update" of new inter-operability protocols.

Think of someone writing an app to interact with Ms Exchange Server. MS already has something for that bundled with Office so it's a direct competition issue. Outlook is always going to know how to talk to the latest Exchange Server but what version of the protocols does that third-party app use. Does it work with the latest MS Exchange or everything up to the previous version before "enhanced" features where added.

The question should be "why have they not been sued by companies in the states"

[news_reader]

Easy money.

Why wouldn't they sue?

It is worth noting that non-Europeans don't have trouble writing software that runs smoothy on Windows. ;)

[jabbotts]

but they have just as much trouble writting for winblows

Non-euro coders have just as much trouble with windows. While most problems with windows to stem from it's focus on being pretty and supporting the bugs written into everything since dos, the rest of the problems are from third-party incompatabilities. It's a closed system and everyone is stuck writting software based on best guesses and crumbs of information from Redmond.

Again, the EUs problem as I understand it is that MS writes the OS, the server software and the client software. If they had there own way, you wouldn't be able to run non-MS software on your computer. By law, they have to allow third-party software production but being the source of the information, they also have the luggury of arbitrarily changing how the software inter-operates constantly manufacturing and environment where third-parties have to pay catchup. The third party get's the changes late having a shorter window to provide functional software before the next great MS "update" of new inter-operability protocols.

Think of someone writing an app to interact with Ms Exchange Server. MS already has something for that bundled with Office so it's a direct competition issue. Outlook is always going to know how to talk to the latest Exchange Server but what version of the protocols does that third-party app use. Does it work with the latest MS Exchange or everything up to the previous version before "enhanced" features where added.

The question should be "why have they not been sued by companies in the states"

[jabbotts]

non-euro coders have just as much trouble

If you have more than windows installed with office you've seen an increase in blue screens. Infact, you'll see a direct relation between third party applications (ie. not ms coded) and your windows stability. The real question is why non-euro companies have not questioned microsoft's practice of delaying release of information system inter-operability until they've had a good headstart in providing supporting user apps.

[Lynn_S]

Simple minds ...

[i]"It is worth noting that non-Europeans don't have trouble writing software that runs smoothy on Windows. ;)"[/i]

Then it might also be worth noting that no European companies brought charges against MS. The suit was started based on complaints from U.S. companies.

Apparently these non-Euros were able to write software but unable to sell it to enough folks to justify doing product development.

[Lynn_S]

Simple minds ...

[i]"It is worth noting that non-Europeans don't have trouble writing software that runs smoothy on Windows. ;)"[/i]

Then it might also be worth noting that no European companies brought charges against MS. The suit was started based on complaints from U.S. companies.

Apparently these non-Euros were able to write software but unable to sell it to enough folks to justify doing product development.

[Captain_Spock]

GOOD JOB REDMOND!

Now, let the Microsoft Share Holders and the rest of the international community see how quickly the EU self-deletes it sphere of influence its wants to presume (in an industry) that it does not have a "team" of that much significance and yet it wants to control the game which began long before the Microsoft Corporation showed up on the playing field. France's victory over the Soccer giant Brazil is a classic example of not fielding one's players in a game in time - by the time they get warmed up the game may be over. One other thing though - it is either they have the necessary ball playing "skills" or they don't! Changing the rules of the competition after the game is over the favour the loosing team can be "riotous" in some cases!

[Captain_Spock]

GOOD JOB REDMOND!

Now, let the Microsoft Share Holders and the rest of the international community see how quickly the EU self-deletes it sphere of influence its wants to presume (in an industry) that it does not have a "team" of that much significance and yet it wants to control the game which began long before the Microsoft Corporation showed up on the playing field. France's victory over the Soccer giant Brazil is a classic example of not fielding one's players in a game in time - by the time they get warmed up the game may be over. One other thing though - it is either they have the necessary ball playing "skills" or they don't! Changing the rules of the competition after the game is over the favour the loosing team can be "riotous" in some cases!

[Captain_Spock]

GOOD JOB REDMOND!

Now, let the Microsoft Share Holders and the rest of the international community see how quickly the EU self-deletes it sphere of influence its wants to presume (in an industry) that it does not have a "team" of that much significance and yet it wants to control the game which began long before the Microsoft Corporation showed up on the playing field. France's victory over the Soccer giant Brazil is a classic example of not fielding one's players in a game in time - by the time they get warmed up the game may be over. One other thing though - it is either they have the necessary ball playing "skills" or they don't! Changing the rules of the competition after the game is over the favour the loosing team can be "riotous" in some cases!

[t8]

Bad job Redmond.

The problem with Microsoft is that they got away with their anti-competitive behaviour in the US probably because they bribed the government with millions for their election campaign.

Europe is doing what the US should have done to Microsoft back in the Netscape days.

The point is if you wish to do business in a certain country, then you need to obey the rules of that country. A company is the same as an individual, they both need to respect the law.

Simple as that. Don't like it, don't do business there.

Do you think that a European company should be able to go the USA and break their rules without being held accountable?

[Captain_Spock]

GOOD JOB REDMOND!

Now, let the Microsoft Share Holders and the rest of the international community see how quickly the EU self-deletes it sphere of influence its wants to presume (in an industry) that it does not have a "team" of that much significance and yet it wants to control the game which began long before the Microsoft Corporation showed up on the playing field. France's victory over the Soccer giant Brazil is a classic example of not fielding one's players in a game in time - by the time they get warmed up the game may be over. One other thing though - it is either they have the necessary ball playing "skills" or they don't! Changing the rules of the competition after the game is over the favour the loosing team can be "riotous" in some cases!

[t8]

Bad job Redmond.

The problem with Microsoft is that they got away with their anti-competitive behaviour in the US probably because they bribed the government with millions for their election campaign.

Europe is doing what the US should have done to Microsoft back in the Netscape days.

The point is if you wish to do business in a certain country, then you need to obey the rules of that country. A company is the same as an individual, they both need to respect the law.

Simple as that. Don't like it, don't do business there.

Do you think that a European company should be able to go the USA and break their rules without being held accountable?

[James_U]

EU Abuse of Power

As an American, I think this is a travesty and total abuse of power by the EU. With all due respect, if MSFT has satisfied the standards of the U.S then I can't imagine why in the EU has a $2.6M-a-day issue with MSFT. Then again, I can. This is politics at its absolute worst.

I wonder what the EU, Germany in particular, would think if the US applied such a ridiculous set of requirements on SAP? The EU should be ashamred of itself, and if they do collect any money from MSFT I hope it gets re-invested in the US and not go to line the pockets of the EU so that they can further target American companies doing business in Europe. Shameful.

James.

[James_U]

EU Abuse of Power

As an American, I think this is a travesty and total abuse of power by the EU. With all due respect, if MSFT has satisfied the standards of the U.S then I can't imagine why in the EU has a $2.6M-a-day issue with MSFT. Then again, I can. This is politics at its absolute worst.

I wonder what the EU, Germany in particular, would think if the US applied such a ridiculous set of requirements on SAP? The EU should be ashamred of itself, and if they do collect any money from MSFT I hope it gets re-invested in the US and not go to line the pockets of the EU so that they can further target American companies doing business in Europe. Shameful.

James.

[nightveil]

Extortion. Pure and simple.

The European Union and its governing bodies are attempting to
extort money from Microsoft simply because MS is a very large
target with a bad reputation.

The idea of interoperability is not new nor is it something that
can't be made to work. As far as I've read, MS has done
everything the EU has asked and so the EU has put up more
hoops for the company to jump through. In the end the EU is
simply out to get some easy money.

[alba tross]

erm

The US courts found Microsoft guilty too or are you just ignoring that? The US courts also rejected a request for information from Microsoft about their accusers because it circumvented European Law and Microsoft had LIED to the court. As far as doing everything required both the US courts and European Courts have found Microsofts documentation incomplete, inadequate and unfit for purpose. Thats from BOTH the US and Europe. The judge in the US has decreed that Microsoft should be monitored for longer than originally stated because of Microsofts utter failure to comply with the US courts decisions. The only difference between the US decision and the European one is that the European one comes with teeth attached!

[nightveil]

Extortion. Pure and simple.

The European Union and its governing bodies are attempting to
extort money from Microsoft simply because MS is a very large
target with a bad reputation.

The idea of interoperability is not new nor is it something that
can't be made to work. As far as I've read, MS has done
everything the EU has asked and so the EU has put up more
hoops for the company to jump through. In the end the EU is
simply out to get some easy money.

[alba tross]

erm

The US courts found Microsoft guilty too or are you just ignoring that? The US courts also rejected a request for information from Microsoft about their accusers because it circumvented European Law and Microsoft had LIED to the court. As far as doing everything required both the US courts and European Courts have found Microsofts documentation incomplete, inadequate and unfit for purpose. Thats from BOTH the US and Europe. The judge in the US has decreed that Microsoft should be monitored for longer than originally stated because of Microsofts utter failure to comply with the US courts decisions. The only difference between the US decision and the European one is that the European one comes with teeth attached!

[Had_to_be_said]

Except that... Microsoft IS GUILTY...

Microsoft HAS been REPEATEDLY found to have VIOLATED the LAW, both in U.S. Courts, AND in European courts.

That is a FACT. And, frankly, only an IDIOT would ignore that basic TRUTH.

In the U.S. Federal Anti-trust case, Microsoft WAS found to have VIOLATED the law, AND "...hurt the industry", AND "...harmed consumers". Microsoft DID, in fact, LOSE every major element of the case against them. Then, Microsoft LOST EVERY ONE of their appeals, all the way up to, AND INCLUDING, their final-appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. In short, the U.S. courts FLATLY-DECLARED Microsoft to be GUILTY of violating "Anti-Trust Laws", AND "consumer rights"... PERIOD.

However, at the last minute, after that, INSANELY, artificially-protracted (by Microsoft) LEGAL-FIASCO... the D.O.J. was apparently specifically directed, by the current federal-administration, to effectively, ...drop the case against Microsoft, ...during the final "penalty phase" of the trial, ...after they (the D.O.J.) had WON EVERY MAJOR ELEMENT of their case against the software-company. In fact, there were actually calls on the floors of both the House, and the Senate, for a CRIMINAL-INVESTIGATION of the matter. However "9/11" happened about a week later and the entire matter just seemed to evaporate.

Now, the EC, of the EU, which HAS found Microsoft GUILTY of BREAKING European LAWS, is struggling to actually impose the required "remedies" to reign-in Microsofts continuing ILLEGAL-BEHAVIORS. Furthermore, this "behavior" HAS been stated to CLEARLY BE INTENTIONAL by the very "expert observers" who were, actually, specifically ACCEPTED by Microsoft. So, Microsoft is HARDLY the "victim" here.

But now... Microsoft HAS apparently managed to use their standard SPIN and FUD tactics to turn this into some kind of "...the rest of the world is unfairly picking on an American-company", CHARADE, ...despite ALL the FACTS.

POOR Microsoft... Oh thats right, they are STILL the RICHEST software company on EARTH, with profits that are actually higher than "illegal drugs".

You know, this level of CORRUPTION, AND STUPIDITY, simply SICKENS ME...

[Had_to_be_said]

Except that... Microsoft IS GUILTY...

Microsoft HAS been REPEATEDLY found to have VIOLATED the LAW, both in U.S. Courts, AND in European courts.

That is a FACT. And, frankly, only an IDIOT would ignore that basic TRUTH.

In the U.S. Federal Anti-trust case, Microsoft WAS found to have VIOLATED the law, AND "...hurt the industry", AND "...harmed consumers". Microsoft DID, in fact, LOSE every major element of the case against them. Then, Microsoft LOST EVERY ONE of their appeals, all the way up to, AND INCLUDING, their final-appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. In short, the U.S. courts FLATLY-DECLARED Microsoft to be GUILTY of violating "Anti-Trust Laws", AND "consumer rights"... PERIOD.

However, at the last minute, after that, INSANELY, artificially-protracted (by Microsoft) LEGAL-FIASCO... the D.O.J. was apparently specifically directed, by the current federal-administration, to effectively, ...drop the case against Microsoft, ...during the final "penalty phase" of the trial, ...after they (the D.O.J.) had WON EVERY MAJOR ELEMENT of their case against the software-company. In fact, there were actually calls on the floors of both the House, and the Senate, for a CRIMINAL-INVESTIGATION of the matter. However "9/11" happened about a week later and the entire matter just seemed to evaporate.

Now, the EC, of the EU, which HAS found Microsoft GUILTY of BREAKING European LAWS, is struggling to actually impose the required "remedies" to reign-in Microsofts continuing ILLEGAL-BEHAVIORS. Furthermore, this "behavior" HAS been stated to CLEARLY BE INTENTIONAL by the very "expert observers" who were, actually, specifically ACCEPTED by Microsoft. So, Microsoft is HARDLY the "victim" here.

But now... Microsoft HAS apparently managed to use their standard SPIN and FUD tactics to turn this into some kind of "...the rest of the world is unfairly picking on an American-company", CHARADE, ...despite ALL the FACTS.

POOR Microsoft... Oh thats right, they are STILL the RICHEST software company on EARTH, with profits that are actually higher than "illegal drugs".

You know, this level of CORRUPTION, AND STUPIDITY, simply SICKENS ME...

[Björn Lundahl]

Antitrust laws are not sacred! Scrap them!

Then the consumers and not the politicians will decide which companies that serves them well. If consumers really feels that a company has too large market share, the consumers will make their purchases from elsewhere. Even if these purchases will be expensier and less attractive. Why? Because, only then, you will know that the consumers really values this outcome that companies should not get too large. But if consumers do no care? We are all consumers, so what have we to worry about? If we do not care, we don´t care. As well, we could also scrap all restrictions on trade, foreign and domestic. If "imports get too large"? Then our currencies will depreciate and our exports will grow. Specialization will be the outcome and we will be more prosperous than ever. Björn Lundahl, Gothenburg, Sweden

[jabbotts]

that would work if it was not already too late

That would work where you have a developing monopoly but in this case Microsoft has used it's gift for marketing to gain dominance when no one was looking:

"oh, you don't want a mac, they're not good for business; just playing games. here, look at dos with it's black and white text screen. Doesn't that look more like something for business productivity. It's your only choice, those prety machines for playing games or ours."

Now that there is more choice outside of expensive AT&T Unix and user level Dos/Mac systems, it's too late. The switching cost to move from windows propriatery file formats, while being lower than one is lead to believe, scares the hell out of executive boards who say yeah/ney to the IT manager.

To further that point; I've met few IT manager's who like Microsoft products and constant delievery of "you just gotta have this" updates and development cycles. It's all designed to keep you addicted based on the same marketing strategies employed by your local street corner dealer accept there product lands them in jail.

There is the other side of the argument of course; IT contractor's love Micrsoft. It's pretty, it's brand is recognized, it does more of the insecure setup itself (a bonus until the recent focus on security) and once you install it you have to visit your client constantly for billable "service calls" and hardware upgrades with each major system update.

Microsoft has really done so much for the IT contracting industry; without them, it'd just be a delivery and installation service.

[Björn Lundahl]

Antitrust laws are not sacred! Scrap them!

Then the consumers and not the politicians will decide which companies that serves them well. If consumers really feels that a company has too large market share, the consumers will make their purchases from elsewhere. Even if these purchases will be expensier and less attractive. Why? Because, only then, you will know that the consumers really values this outcome that companies should not get too large. But if consumers do no care? We are all consumers, so what have we to worry about? If we do not care, we don´t care. As well, we could also scrap all restrictions on trade, foreign and domestic. If "imports get too large"? Then our currencies will depreciate and our exports will grow. Specialization will be the outcome and we will be more prosperous than ever. Björn Lundahl, Gothenburg, Sweden

[jabbotts]

that would work if it was not already too late

That would work where you have a developing monopoly but in this case Microsoft has used it's gift for marketing to gain dominance when no one was looking:

"oh, you don't want a mac, they're not good for business; just playing games. here, look at dos with it's black and white text screen. Doesn't that look more like something for business productivity. It's your only choice, those prety machines for playing games or ours."

Now that there is more choice outside of expensive AT&T Unix and user level Dos/Mac systems, it's too late. The switching cost to move from windows propriatery file formats, while being lower than one is lead to believe, scares the hell out of executive boards who say yeah/ney to the IT manager.

To further that point; I've met few IT manager's who like Microsoft products and constant delievery of "you just gotta have this" updates and development cycles. It's all designed to keep you addicted based on the same marketing strategies employed by your local street corner dealer accept there product lands them in jail.

There is the other side of the argument of course; IT contractor's love Micrsoft. It's pretty, it's brand is recognized, it does more of the insecure setup itself (a bonus until the recent focus on security) and once you install it you have to visit your client constantly for billable "service calls" and hardware upgrades with each major system update.

Microsoft has really done so much for the IT contracting industry; without them, it'd just be a delivery and installation service.

[unknown unknown]

Deciding non-compliance before even seeing Microsoft's final submission..

that sort rules out, or cast a great deal of doubt, on the commission ability to fairly evaluate Microsoft's final documentation.

[unknown unknown]

Deciding non-compliance before even seeing Microsoft's final submission..

that sort rules out, or cast a great deal of doubt, on the commission ability to fairly evaluate Microsoft's final documentation.

[unknown unknown]

Deciding non-compliance before even seeing Microsoft's final submission..

that sort rules out, or cast a great deal of doubt, on the commission ability to fairly evaluation of Microsoft's final submission of protocol and API documentation.

[unknown unknown]

Sorry about the double post

It 403 on me the first time so I hit submit again when apparently it went through the first time.

[alba tross]

Not sure, but...

weren't they supposed to have submitted their final documentation before December last year? Microsoft have dragged their heels over this for the past 2 years, they have now got what they deserved in the first place. In fact, if I remember correctly, they were given 120 days from the decision in 2004 to supply rivals with what they needed. Microsoft either dont know how their systems work or are incapable of documenting them. Either way thay have had more than their fair share of time to come up with the goods.

[unknown unknown]

Deciding non-compliance before even seeing Microsoft's final submission..

that sort rules out, or cast a great deal of doubt, on the commission ability to fairly evaluation of Microsoft's final submission of protocol and API documentation.

[unknown unknown]

Sorry about the double post

It 403 on me the first time so I hit submit again when apparently it went through the first time.

[alba tross]

Not sure, but...

weren't they supposed to have submitted their final documentation before December last year? Microsoft have dragged their heels over this for the past 2 years, they have now got what they deserved in the first place. In fact, if I remember correctly, they were given 120 days from the decision in 2004 to supply rivals with what they needed. Microsoft either dont know how their systems work or are incapable of documenting them. Either way thay have had more than their fair share of time to come up with the goods.

[Captain_Spock]

"Microsoft IS GUILTY" in whose judgement....

... and in what sense of the word? Since you have stated among other things; "Microsoft HAS been REPEATEDLY found to have VIOLATED the LAW, both in U.S. Courts, AND in European courts."...; now, If this is the case in every respect, can you explain why is it that "In 1998, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the State Street case destroyed the last remnant of the method of doing business objection to obtaining a patent. It ruled that no legal basis exists for such an exception to patentability and that if an invention otherwise meets the standards for patentability, there is no legitimate basis for denying the issuance of a patent. This ruling was made for a software invention that used computerized processing to establish a system for pooling of assets of mutual funds."

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-0012.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-0012.html</a>

and; and this article further states, " As a result of the patenting changes, people creating new, computerized business systems must consider patent protection. The fact that a computer is performing accounting or financial processing which previously had been performed manually does not preclude patentability if the standards of patentability (i.e., usefulness, novelty, and unobviousness) are met. Simply computerizing an operation may not result in a patentable invention, however. One must look at the differences between the com-puterized system and the prior manual approach, as well as the value added through the use of the computerized system. One also should consider the types of patent protection available, e.g., methods, apparatus, and products.

Another dimension of the State Street ruling is that the patent system has moved farther away from the requirement that there be an application of a mathematical algorithm to produce a &#65533;useful, concrete and tangible result.&#65533; This prior standard was generally interpreted as requiring a relationship with a physical world. For example, such a result might involve the use of the mathematical algorithm in a computation, which, through a servomechanism, was fed back to a rolling mill controller to adjust the gap between a pair of rolls. When the State Street ruling accepted the processing of quantities of money to provide numerical information not involving direct, physical interaction with the world, a further change in the law occurred. The determination of the share price based upon dollar input was held to be fixed for recording and reporting purposes and was deemed to satisfy the useful, concrete, and tangible result standard. Because way-of-doing-business patenting is no longer a separate category, patents may be available on inventions that involve software for processing data of various types, not necessarily limited to financial data, so long as a useful, concrete, and tangible result has been produced.". So, as can be clearly seen from the above... the US based Microsoft Corporation would have clearly acted within United States Laws in pursuing its legitimate rights in implementing new technologies which should be thoroughly evaluated and guaranteed patent protection.

All in all, if one cares to remember the slogan - IT IS THE ECONOMY - STUPID! The question is - Which One, the EU's or the US's!

[Had_to_be_said]

Boy, you took a page right out of Microsofts "Playbook"...

The EC and now, at this point, Id say MOST OTHER PEOPLE are aware, and tired, of Microsofts perennial-game of endlessly trying to delay the execution of every LEGAL-PROCESS they face, ...by dumping enormous amounts of totally irrelevant legalistic MISH-MASH, and intentionally nonsensical TECHNO-BABBLE, upon those that are trying to conclude a legal-proceeding against the company, ...once Microsoft HAS, in fact, been FOUND GUILTY.

In my opinion, whats even worse is Microsofts perpetually, expending enormous amounts of resources on their, pedantic, SPIN and RABID public-opinion MANIPULATION campaigns, ...which are clearly designed, SOLELY, to HOPELESSLY CONFUSE those who simply do not possess specific knowledge of Microsofts decades-long history of such WRONG-DOINGS.

And then, there are the posts in public-forums, such as this, ...which do the exact same thing...

Sorry, but the totally disconnected, onerous, and apparently intentionally-rambling diatribe, sprinkled with meaningless "references", regarding one TOTALLY-UNRELATED legal-case, in NO WAY has ANYTHING, whatsoever, to do with the "Anti-Trust Laws" which Microsoft HAS, specifically, BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF VIOLATING in Europe. Nor, does it seem, in any way, relevant to the SUCCESSFUL prosecution of the United States "Federal Anti-trust case" AGAINST Microsoft.

But, more to the general-point...

Who says Microsoft is "guilty"..?

Uh... How about...The United States Legal-System,...the Federal Appellate court that UPHELD the ANTI-TRUST "Findings of Fact" and the "verdict" of the original court, ...The United States Supreme Court which REJECTED ALL of Microsofts appeals, ...and now the EC, of the EU, which HAS found Microsoft GUILTY of VIOLATING a different set of, European, "Anti-trust Laws"..?

So, "... in whose judgement[sic]", is Microsoft GUILTY..?

Well, that would be the court-JUDGES, ...you know, ...thats the people in the robes with the gavels, ...WHO PASS JUDGMENT, ...BASED UPON THE LAW.

[Captain_Spock]

"Microsoft IS GUILTY" in whose judgement....

... and in what sense of the word? Since you have stated among other things; "Microsoft HAS been REPEATEDLY found to have VIOLATED the LAW, both in U.S. Courts, AND in European courts."...; now, If this is the case in every respect, can you explain why is it that "In 1998, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the State Street case destroyed the last remnant of the method of doing business objection to obtaining a patent. It ruled that no legal basis exists for such an exception to patentability and that if an invention otherwise meets the standards for patentability, there is no legitimate basis for denying the issuance of a patent. This ruling was made for a software invention that used computerized processing to establish a system for pooling of assets of mutual funds."

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-0012.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-0012.html</a>

and; and this article further states, " As a result of the patenting changes, people creating new, computerized business systems must consider patent protection. The fact that a computer is performing accounting or financial processing which previously had been performed manually does not preclude patentability if the standards of patentability (i.e., usefulness, novelty, and unobviousness) are met. Simply computerizing an operation may not result in a patentable invention, however. One must look at the differences between the com-puterized system and the prior manual approach, as well as the value added through the use of the computerized system. One also should consider the types of patent protection available, e.g., methods, apparatus, and products.

Another dimension of the State Street ruling is that the patent system has moved farther away from the requirement that there be an application of a mathematical algorithm to produce a &#65533;useful, concrete and tangible result.&#65533; This prior standard was generally interpreted as requiring a relationship with a physical world. For example, such a result might involve the use of the mathematical algorithm in a computation, which, through a servomechanism, was fed back to a rolling mill controller to adjust the gap between a pair of rolls. When the State Street ruling accepted the processing of quantities of money to provide numerical information not involving direct, physical interaction with the world, a further change in the law occurred. The determination of the share price based upon dollar input was held to be fixed for recording and reporting purposes and was deemed to satisfy the useful, concrete, and tangible result standard. Because way-of-doing-business patenting is no longer a separate category, patents may be available on inventions that involve software for processing data of various types, not necessarily limited to financial data, so long as a useful, concrete, and tangible result has been produced.". So, as can be clearly seen from the above... the US based Microsoft Corporation would have clearly acted within United States Laws in pursuing its legitimate rights in implementing new technologies which should be thoroughly evaluated and guaranteed patent protection.

All in all, if one cares to remember the slogan - IT IS THE ECONOMY - STUPID! The question is - Which One, the EU's or the US's!

[Had_to_be_said]

Boy, you took a page right out of Microsofts "Playbook"...

The EC and now, at this point, Id say MOST OTHER PEOPLE are aware, and tired, of Microsofts perennial-game of endlessly trying to delay the execution of every LEGAL-PROCESS they face, ...by dumping enormous amounts of totally irrelevant legalistic MISH-MASH, and intentionally nonsensical TECHNO-BABBLE, upon those that are trying to conclude a legal-proceeding against the company, ...once Microsoft HAS, in fact, been FOUND GUILTY.

In my opinion, whats even worse is Microsofts perpetually, expending enormous amounts of resources on their, pedantic, SPIN and RABID public-opinion MANIPULATION campaigns, ...which are clearly designed, SOLELY, to HOPELESSLY CONFUSE those who simply do not possess specific knowledge of Microsofts decades-long history of such WRONG-DOINGS.

And then, there are the posts in public-forums, such as this, ...which do the exact same thing...

Sorry, but the totally disconnected, onerous, and apparently intentionally-rambling diatribe, sprinkled with meaningless "references", regarding one TOTALLY-UNRELATED legal-case, in NO WAY has ANYTHING, whatsoever, to do with the "Anti-Trust Laws" which Microsoft HAS, specifically, BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF VIOLATING in Europe. Nor, does it seem, in any way, relevant to the SUCCESSFUL prosecution of the United States "Federal Anti-trust case" AGAINST Microsoft.

But, more to the general-point...

Who says Microsoft is "guilty"..?

Uh... How about...The United States Legal-System,...the Federal Appellate court that UPHELD the ANTI-TRUST "Findings of Fact" and the "verdict" of the original court, ...The United States Supreme Court which REJECTED ALL of Microsofts appeals, ...and now the EC, of the EU, which HAS found Microsoft GUILTY of VIOLATING a different set of, European, "Anti-trust Laws"..?

So, "... in whose judgement[sic]", is Microsoft GUILTY..?

Well, that would be the court-JUDGES, ...you know, ...thats the people in the robes with the gavels, ...WHO PASS JUDGMENT, ...BASED UPON THE LAW.

[Seaspray0]

What an API is, and my observations about microsoft documentation

If you're not familiar, an API is an "application program interface". The purpose of an API is to allow programs to call operating system functions rather than having to code the function into itself. API's include functions such as sending output to a printer, receiving input from the keyboard and mouse, opening a window and sending output to it, opening and reading/writing files to hard drives.... There are thousands of API's in windows. What the EU is complaining about: Microsoft has not released documentation on all the API's to the public which allows microsoft's own programs to work better by using the API's others do not know about.

Microsoft provided a huge stack of papers to the EU months ago, but the EU experts claim that the information is not organized in a fashion that makes the data usable. After talks with the EU, microsoft is reorganizing the data into a format the EU experts have requested and are resubmitting the data.

Here's the question I'm curious about: If the information the EU requested is in the original documentation that was submitted (but not understandable because of the way in which it was organized), then microsoft has already submitted what the EU requested. It would then be a matter of miscommunication (EU did not originally define the format for the information). If the EU fines microsoft now without checking the documentation currently being submitted against what was originally submitted to see if the information was there but in the wrong format, then the EU is at fault.

I have used quite a bit of documentation by microsoft (I have a book case full of their books). Although somewhat dry material, along with the help files provided with all their programs and online documentation (MSDN and TechNet), I have observed that the documentation I've seen is quite detailed and descriptive, in many cases providing more information that what I needed to answer my questions. I find it odd that the EU claims the original information provided by microsoft was worthless.

[ayteebee]

Worthless information

"Here's the question I'm curious about: If the information the EU requested is in the original documentation that was submitted (but not understandable because of the way in which it was organized), then microsoft has already submitted what the EU requested." If it's not understandable then it's useless and Microsoft might as well have not bothered submitting it. Like when a schoolchild does his homework but the teacher can't read it, so she tells him to do it again. It's there, but it's useless, so it might as well not be there. I agree that the court should have specified exactly how they wanted it, but then MS's reluctance to even think about that themselves and produce useful information shows just how much of a bad attitude they have. Maybe the court will consider this and be aware of the impoortance of the format of information in the future. We can only hope that they learn from their mistakes.

[Thrudheim]

The document dump

is a time-honored technique for avoiding disclosure of the
requested information. Essentially, you supply the opposing legal
team with such a crapload of irrelevant information that they can't
find the stuff they requested in the first place.

Given Microsoft's behavior in past antitrust actions, I assume that
they would play hardball now too. They don't deserve the benefit
of the doubt.

[Seaspray0]

What an API is, and my observations about microsoft documentation

If you're not familiar, an API is an "application program interface". The purpose of an API is to allow programs to call operating system functions rather than having to code the function into itself. API's include functions such as sending output to a printer, receiving input from the keyboard and mouse, opening a window and sending output to it, opening and reading/writing files to hard drives.... There are thousands of API's in windows. What the EU is complaining about: Microsoft has not released documentation on all the API's to the public which allows microsoft's own programs to work better by using the API's others do not know about.

Microsoft provided a huge stack of papers to the EU months ago, but the EU experts claim that the information is not organized in a fashion that makes the data usable. After talks with the EU, microsoft is reorganizing the data into a format the EU experts have requested and are resubmitting the data.

Here's the question I'm curious about: If the information the EU requested is in the original documentation that was submitted (but not understandable because of the way in which it was organized), then microsoft has already submitted what the EU requested. It would then be a matter of miscommunication (EU did not originally define the format for the information). If the EU fines microsoft now without checking the documentation currently being submitted against what was originally submitted to see if the information was there but in the wrong format, then the EU is at fault.

I have used quite a bit of documentation by microsoft (I have a book case full of their books). Although somewhat dry material, along with the help files provided with all their programs and online documentation (MSDN and TechNet), I have observed that the documentation I've seen is quite detailed and descriptive, in many cases providing more information that what I needed to answer my questions. I find it odd that the EU claims the original information provided by microsoft was worthless.

[ayteebee]

Worthless information

"Here's the question I'm curious about: If the information the EU requested is in the original documentation that was submitted (but not understandable because of the way in which it was organized), then microsoft has already submitted what the EU requested." If it's not understandable then it's useless and Microsoft might as well have not bothered submitting it. Like when a schoolchild does his homework but the teacher can't read it, so she tells him to do it again. It's there, but it's useless, so it might as well not be there. I agree that the court should have specified exactly how they wanted it, but then MS's reluctance to even think about that themselves and produce useful information shows just how much of a bad attitude they have. Maybe the court will consider this and be aware of the impoortance of the format of information in the future. We can only hope that they learn from their mistakes.

[Thrudheim]

The document dump

is a time-honored technique for avoiding disclosure of the
requested information. Essentially, you supply the opposing legal
team with such a crapload of irrelevant information that they can't
find the stuff they requested in the first place.

Given Microsoft's behavior in past antitrust actions, I assume that
they would play hardball now too. They don't deserve the benefit
of the doubt.

[aabcdefghij987654321]

Predictions

The EU fine will be between 75% to 100% of the maximum they can levy.

Since MS did present documentation for the APIs in question within the original timeframe and the EU rejected that documentation it appears that collecting a fine was the intention of this whole exercise in the first place. I say that because it appears (from the fragments we get) that the EU was unwilling to state exactly *how* the originally provided documentation was defective until very recently. The only conceivable purpose for that would have been to take more time in order to increase the size of the fine.

Of course I could be all wrong (wouldn't be the first time &lt;g&gt;) but it doesn't look that way to me.

[aabcdefghij987654321]

Predictions

The EU fine will be between 75% to 100% of the maximum they can levy.

Since MS did present documentation for the APIs in question within the original timeframe and the EU rejected that documentation it appears that collecting a fine was the intention of this whole exercise in the first place. I say that because it appears (from the fragments we get) that the EU was unwilling to state exactly *how* the originally provided documentation was defective until very recently. The only conceivable purpose for that would have been to take more time in order to increase the size of the fine.

Of course I could be all wrong (wouldn't be the first time &lt;g&gt;) but it doesn't look that way to me.

[extinctone]

Worthless Information

I've noticed that European courts are less tolerant of word games and disingeniusness than American courts. The EC didn't just ask Microsoft to provide whatever information it felt necessary in whatever format it felt appropriate. Instead the EC ordered MS to get together with the plantiffs and ensure that it provided what they needed in order to use Microsoft's API. If MS felt the plaintiffs were being unreasonable in their demands then it was to return to the court for clarification and appropriate action against the plaintiffs. Otherwise, it had until a specific date to satisfy the plaintiff's needs.

There was room in that demand for the paperwork games, "misunderstandings", and delaying tactics that are so commonplace in American courts.