Jonathan Todd Soft Quotations

It is the commission that decides if Microsoft is in compliance with the ruling, not Microsoft.

We have confirmed the deadline of February 15 on the basis that nearly eight weeks should be sufficient for Microsoft to reply to a comparatively short statement of objections.

The Department of Justice is also stating that Microsoft is failing to provide requisite technical information.

We are concerned about the possibility that Vista will include software elements which are available separately, either sold by Microsoft or by other software companies.

We are concerned about the possibility that the next Vista operating system will include various elements which are currently available separately from Microsoft or other companies.

Microsoft has to comply with the March 2004 decision, not with their interpretation of the March 2004 decision.

Microsoft asked us what could be problematic with Vista, so we told them.

Microsoft will have the opportunity to explain how this technical support is relevant to the March 2004 decision.

Microsoft is very attached, as you know, to business secrets -- its own business secrets.

Microsoft is obliged to comply with the remedies which were imposed in the commission's 2004 decision, nothing more nothing less. We are not moving the goalposts as has been suggested, we are not changing our demands.

Microsoft is not disclosing complete and accurate interface information to allow non-Microsoft workgroup servers to receive full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers.

The goalposts have not moved... We are not making new and changing demands. We simply request that Microsoft comply with what is in the March 2004 decision... Nothing more, nothing less.

She took the view that a time period of eight weeks should be sufficient for Microsoft to reply to a comparatively short statement of objections.

We assume Microsoft has its own interest at heart and it wants to launch another product without having to worry about the Commission instituting various actions under antitrust law because of this product.

It is therefore premature for Microsoft to claim that the Commission has prejudiced their rights of defense.

It is now one year since the Court of First Instance confirmed that Microsoft had to comply with the remedies imposed by the March 2004 decision.

It is one year since the Court of First Instance confirmed Microsoft had to comply with the March 2004 decision. The Commission regrets Microsoft has failed to do so. We would prefer Microsoft to comply with the March 2004 decision, and not with their interpretation of that decision.

Let me be clear, the Commission's position is that Microsoft is obliged to comply with the remedies imposed by the Commission's March 2004 decision, nothing more, nothing less. We are not moving goal posts, we are not changing our demands.

We are of the opinion that Microsoft is not in compliance. We are still expecting a reply to our statement of objections.

I can confirm that Microsoft did make a formal request for the hearing to be public and the request was refused by the hearing officer because the procedural regulation explicitly prohibits this.

It's not necessary for Microsoft to go beyond what we are asking for. It would be quite sufficient for them to do what they are supposed to do in accordance with the decision of March 2004.

It's not necessary for Microsoft to go beyond what we are asking for.

The Commission would like nothing better than to put outstanding issues with Microsoft behind us.

The commission expects Microsoft to respect the principles established by the March 2004 decision when designing and implementing Vista.

We have no reason to believe that they will not make final offer before midnight. We have no reason to believe that Microsoft will not respect the decision made in 2004.

It's not comparable to a seller on the high street where the customer has a choice of supply. It's a company with a dominant market position. The commission has found Microsoft to be abusing that dominant market position by failing to make its technical information available.

The onus is on Microsoft to explain, in its reply to the statement of objections today, precisely why and how making the source code available would bring it into compliance with the remedy.

We would have preferred obviously that Microsoft complied quickly as they indicated this time last year that they would. I would like to stress that we expect of course Microsoft to comply with the March 2004 decision and not with their own interpretation of the March 2004 decision.

Professor Barrett is a leading and well-respected computer expert whose name was suggested to the Commission by Microsoft .

It's not the kind of normal thing we do, but we have done so because Microsoft is alleging the trustee acted in an inappropriate manner in terms of contacting other companies. We wanted to make crystal clear that he is obligated to be proactive.

The only plan professor Barrett has presented was in January, when he proposed that he work with Microsoft engineers to improve the documentation.