Feeds

Microsoft prolongs row over EC manuals

Pity the poor bureaucrat who has to check them

Build a business case: developing custom apps

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. ®

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

More from The Register

next story
Why has the web gone to hell? Market chaos and HUMAN NATURE
Tim Berners-Lee isn't happy, but we should be
Microsoft boots 1,500 dodgy apps from the Windows Store
DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS! Naughty, misleading developers!
'Stop dissing Google or quit': OK, I quit, says Code Club co-founder
And now a message from our sponsors: 'STFU or else'
Apple promises to lift Curse of the Drained iPhone 5 Battery
Have you tried turning it off and...? Never mind, here's a replacement
Linux turns 23 and Linus Torvalds celebrates as only he can
No, not with swearing, but by controlling the release cycle
Scratched PC-dispatch patch patched, hatched in batch rematch
Windows security update fixed after triggering blue screens (and screams) of death
This is how I set about making a fortune with my own startup
Would you leave your well-paid job to chase your dream?
prev story

Whitepapers

Top 10 endpoint backup mistakes
Avoid the ten endpoint backup mistakes to ensure that your critical corporate data is protected and end user productivity is improved.
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.
Backing up distributed data
Eliminating the redundant use of bandwidth and storage capacity and application consolidation in the modern data center.
The essential guide to IT transformation
ServiceNow discusses three IT transformations that can help CIOs automate IT services to transform IT and the enterprise
Next gen security for virtualised datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.