Jonathan Todd Marc Quotations

If the Court of First Instance upholds the March 2004 decision then it should be possible for the protocols that do not embody innovations to be circulated under open-source licenses.

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.

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

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

The European Commission is not intending at the moment to open a new case against Microsoft. The Commission is, however, determined to ensure the proper application of the March 2004 decision and in particular the remedies imposed by that decision.

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.

the EC will continue to work to ensure Microsoft's total compliance with the March 2004 decision.

The commission will remain determined to ensure full compliance with the March 2004 decision. The commission is obliged under treaty rules to ensure the proper application of the competition law to the benefit of consumers and companies, and not to the benefit of any individual company.

The commission will be explaining to the court why it considers the decision of March 2004 was well-founded.

The Commission remains committed to ensuring full compliance with its March 2004 decision.

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

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.

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.