Feeds

Microsoft prolongs row over EC manuals

Pity the poor bureaucrat who has to check them

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

Microsoft has made an official response to a European Commission demand that it justify its failure to meet obligations imposed under a 2004 anti-trust ruling.

But its response appears to have been something akin to "up yours". The firm not only said in a statement this afternoon that its software documentation was good enough, but that it supplied it in time and the EC had not even bothered to read it.

In 2004, the EC ruled that Microsoft had abused its dominant position in the market for server software. It proposed to open the market up by making Microsoft issue technical documentation that would make it easy for other developers to produce server software that could communicate with its operating system.

It has been stuck in a playground spat over the documentation ever since.

The latest submission from Redmond includes evidence from five computer science professors that claims the last batch of documentation given over to the EC "provided complete and accurate information" that met "current industry standards...to the extent that this can be reasonably achieved."

The last expert witness Microsoft chose to examine its documentation was seconded to become the EC's Monitoring Trustee and decide whether the software giant's submissions satisfied the 2004 ruling.

The EC says it has had to "repeatedly remind of the need to provide complete and accurate specifications". Further, the documentation Microsoft said had been supplied on time and merely not read by officials had in fact been supplied late.

"It is of course the European Commission that will decide whether Microsoft is compliant with the March 2004 decision, and not Microsoft," the EC said in response to Microsoft's statement.

Other matters to be considered include Microsoft's provision of source code licences, which the EC says it will have to justify in respect of the 2004 ruling if they are to get off the hook.

Microsoft has requested an oral hearing. The EC said "sure thing", but we may have to impose fines backdated from the date of the hearing to the last documentation deadline, December 15, 2005, and we will try and keep them going if there's cause.

The row continues. ®

Providing a secure and efficient Helpdesk

More from The Register

next story
Microsoft WINDOWS 10: Seven ATE Nine. Or Eight did really
Windows NEIN skipped, tech preview due out on Wednesday
Business is back, baby! Hasta la VISTA, Win 8... Oh, yeah, Windows 9
Forget touchscreen millennials, Microsoft goes for mouse crowd
Apple: SO sorry for the iOS 8.0.1 UPDATE BUNGLE HORROR
Apple kills 'upgrade'. Hey, Microsoft. You sure you want to be like these guys?
ARM gives Internet of Things a piece of its mind – the Cortex-M7
32-bit core packs some DSP for VIP IoT CPU LOL
Microsoft on the Threshold of a new name for Windows next week
Rebranded OS reportedly set to be flung open by Redmond
Lotus Notes inventor Ozzie invents app to talk to people on your phone
Imagine that. Startup floats with voice collab app for Win iPhone
'Google is NOT the gatekeeper to the web, as some claim'
Plus: 'Pretty sure iOS 8.0.2 will just turn the iPhone into a fax machine'
prev story

Whitepapers

A strategic approach to identity relationship management
ForgeRock commissioned Forrester to evaluate companies’ IAM practices and requirements when it comes to customer-facing scenarios versus employee-facing ones.
Storage capacity and performance optimization at Mizuno USA
Mizuno USA turn to Tegile storage technology to solve both their SAN and backup issues.
High Performance for All
While HPC is not new, it has traditionally been seen as a specialist area – is it now geared up to meet more mainstream requirements?
Beginner's guide to SSL certificates
De-mystify the technology involved and give you the information you need to make the best decision when considering your online security options.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.