Feeds

MS EC appeal kicks off

'The bell once rung cannot be unrung'

  • alert
  • submit to reddit

Boost IT visibility and business value

Microsoft has told the European Court of First Instance that it should not have to share information with its competitors, arguing that revealing its secret would harm it irreparably.

In March, the European Commission ruled that Microsoft had violated anti-trust law and abused its monopoly position. It imposed a €497m fine, and ordered the company to makes its protocols available to competitors.

Microsoft will appear in the court again tomorrow, where it will continue to press for the European Commission to suspend the ruling. A lawyer for the company said that this was the first time in history that a company had been ordered to deliver its "secret technology" to its competitors.

However, Jeremy Allison of Samba argues that Microsoft has been happy to share its secrets in the past: "Microsoft has given to the Samba Team in the past internal documents describing exactly the level of protocol information we now need," he said.

He added: "They gave us these documents knowing we would create code with them, and they encouraged this. We were not required to sign non-disclosure agreements to obtain this information, we were simply treated as a trusted third party."

To have the penalties frozen, Microsoft needs to prove that it will suffer irreparable harm if it shares its protocols.

Its legal team says that disclosing the information is a one-way journey, and company lawyer Ian Forrester even became quite lyrical: "The bell once rung cannot be unrung," Reuters reports.

However, convincing the court that it will lose market share permanently will be quite a task. Lawyers acting for the European Commission argue that Microsoft has failed to prove that it would be harmed, and says that any licensing problems could be sorted out using non disclosure agreements.

Tomorrow, the court will hear evidence from RealNetworks and Microsoft in relation to the EC ruling that Microsoft should ship a version of its operating system than doesn't include Windows Media Player. ®

Related stories

EC 'supports special interests of rivals' - Microsoft
MS has Media Player - less Windows, just in case...
Real Networks 'seeks alliance' with Apple
EC backs down on MS (a little)

5 things you didn’t know about cloud backup

More from The Register

next story
Munich considers dumping Linux for ... GULP ... Windows!
Give a penguinista a hug, the Outlook's not good for open source's poster child
The Return of BSOD: Does ANYONE trust Microsoft patches?
Sysadmins, you're either fighting fires or seen as incompetents now
Intel's Raspberry Pi rival Galileo can now run Windows
Behold the Internet of Things. Wintel Things
Microsoft cries UNINSTALL in the wake of Blue Screens of Death™
Cache crash causes contained choloric calamity
Eat up Martha! Microsoft slings handwriting recog into OneNote on Android
Freehand input on non-Windows kit for the first time
Time to move away from Windows 7 ... whoa, whoa, who said anything about Windows 8?
Start migrating now to avoid another XPocalypse – Gartner
You'll find Yoda at the back of every IT conference
The piss always taking is he. Bastard the.
prev story

Whitepapers

5 things you didn’t know about cloud backup
IT departments are embracing cloud backup, but there’s a lot you need to know before choosing a service provider. Learn all the critical things you need to know.
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Build a business case: developing custom apps
Learn how to maximize the value of custom applications by accelerating and simplifying their development.
Rethinking backup and recovery in the modern data center
Combining intelligence, operational analytics, and automation to enable efficient, data-driven IT organizations using the HP ABR approach.
Next gen security for virtualised datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.