Jonathan Todd Quotations

Whether or not the new transaction will have to be re-notified will be something that the parties and the lawyers of the parties will have to study very carefully. If, for example, it is a different type of transaction it might have to be re-notified.

What they have done is insufficient. It's now two years since the decision.

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.

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.

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

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.

Several companies have expressed their concerns to the Commission concerning Microsoft's Vista operating system.

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.

She said, 'I want a better set of remedies,' and she got them. She's a good negotiator.

She refused the extension on the grounds that the time period of eight weeks should be sufficient for Microsoft.

If they do not share our point of view, they are of course free to go back to the court if they want to.

Given we have never seen players taken on for 10 years, there seems to be a problem here.

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.

If the Commission is not satisfied with the Polish authorities' response, it would have the possibility of adopting a formal decision declaring that Poland was in breach of Article 21 of the merger regulations.

He is an advisor, he doesn't make plans.

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.

It is in Microsoft's own interest to clarify these issues as soon as possible so as not to have any doubts about the legality of Vista hanging in the air.

Our independent trustee, who is advising the Commission and who was suggested to us by Microsoft, Professor Neil Barrett, has told us the document is, to quote, 'totally useless'.

It didn't think of popping around the corner and popping a copy through the door.

I would like to point out, however, that we have excellent cooperation with U.S. antitrust authorities.

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.

Member states cannot intervene on competition grounds on mergers of European dimension.

We hope he will announce measures to ensure compliance. We hope that clarifies the position.

We have not yet agreed (on) the trustee with Microsoft.

We have not been moving the goal posts despite what some people have said.

We were intending to send the statement of objections in the next few weeks.

We are not moving the goalposts as has been suggested. We are not changing our demands.

We are not interested in interfering in the market. But the current situation is illegal.

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.

The deadline is midnight. There is no way of telling if it will arrive at 11:59 tonight or earlier. The decision on whether or not we need to impose these daily fines will be taken in light of the information received from Microsoft.

The deadline is midnight (2300 GMT). There is no way of telling if it will arrive at 11:59 (2259 GMT) tonight or earlier. The decision on whether or not we need to impose these daily fines will be taken in light of the information received from 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.

We will examine the complaints carefully to see if there has been any violation of EU competition rules.

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.

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.

We will look at the Polish response carefully.

We welcome in particular the fact that the court confirmed that discriminatory pricing agreements for domestic sales and exports to the detriment of consumers in other member states are an illegal, restrictive business practice.

Experience clearly shows that where there is more competition on a market, prices fall.

We'll have to look at the deal and reply afterwards.

There is also the possibility that we won't have all the necessary technical information so that competitors will be able to make a product that is compatible with Vista.

We have 25 working days to decide whether we think there may be some negative impact on effective competition or not.

We can only begin our analysis once we have received the details in writing and so far all we have received is the press release.

We will take into account what was said at the hearing and the documents submitted before we make a decision. It will take several weeks.

We are carefully analyzing (Microsoft's) reply and after they have had the opportunity to present their arguments at the oral hearing we will decide whether or not to impose a daily fine.

We think he will be a truly independent adviser.

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

We are taking a close interest in the situation. There has been informal contact with the Polish authorities in the past few months.

We are going to follow the situation very attentively.

There's no way of telling if (the response) will arrive at 11:59.

The role of the European Commission is to ensure proper application of EU competition rules to benefit consumers and companies in Europe, not for the benefit of one company.

It would be no good if one broadcaster claimed 99% and the other only 1% of the matches.

It would be premature to conclude that offering access to source codes would necessarily resolve the problem of compliance.

It would be premature to conclude access to the source code would resolve the problem of the lack of compliance with our decision.

Technical support is only helpful if the documentation has reached a certain standard.

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

Spanish authorities need to respect the Commission's competence.

The monitor is an adviser to the European Commission and does not make proposals.

As a result of our investigation and our contact with the two companies, they have now amended their practices so that consumers will now be able to buy other brands of cars from dealerships that were previously exclusively for BMW, Mini and General Motors.

This date has now been pushed back to Feb 15.

They should have challenged the decision nominating him, which outlined the terms and conditions of his relationship with the Commission.

They are contesting our decision on legal grounds in court, and we will fight them on that. Our own investigation of Poland's 1999 privatization rules will continue.

They have made a request, which is currently under consideration, and we will make a decision before the 25th.

It is part of the trustee's mandate to have these contacts.

It is part of the obligation of the trustee to proactively make contact with third parties and discuss what information they require to make interoperable products.

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

It's all very well to give 12,000 pages -- they could give half a million -- but if it's not the right information for competitors to make Microsoft-compatible workgroup servers it doesn't resolve the compliance with the remedy.

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.

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.

It's the quality and not the quantity that counts. You can give half-a-million pages, but if it's not the right information for competitors to be able to make compatible work group server products then it doesn't resolve the compliance issue.

It's not as if we intend to introduce some major shift in approach. It's rather that we will assess in 2007 whether, in light of the cases that we've been dealing with, it would be useful to further clarify the principles.

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

It will be at least several weeks because it's a complicated matter and we will have to digest very carefully the information that we obtain from the hearings and the information that we have obtained in writing.

They are not the judge. We are the judge,

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.

However, technical support is only helpful once the documentation has reached a certain quality standard ... the Commission's preliminary view is that the technical documentation still does not comply with the requirements of the decision.

I can confirm the deadline is today before midnight. The decision hasn't yet been taken. When the decision is taken, I will send out a statement.

I can confirm the Commission is due to consider sending a letter to Poland warning Poland the Commission considers that they may be in breach of Article 21 of the merger regulations, which gives the Commission exclusive competence over mergers of a European dimension.

I can confirm that the European Commission has received the complaints and will examine them carefully.

I can confirm that the deadline is today, before midnight. A decision has not yet been taken, but I hope for all our sakes that it will be taken as early as possible.

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.

Car prices have increased less than the price of inflation.

Governments do not have right to take measures relating to competition, if it is a merger that falls under our (jurisdiction).

The Justice Department and the Commission's competition department have regular contact on this case.

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 hearing officer maintained her position that the correspondence is internal and in principle irrelevant for the purposes of Microsoft's rights of defense.

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

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 welcomes the ruling and will have a more detailed statement at midday.

The Commission's hearing officer maintained her position that correspondence between the Commission and the trustee and technical experts is internal.