Microsoft has not given up its exclusionary policies...Indeed any settlement in fact validates the Commission's case. Since the Commission is not bound by any private settlement, ECIS therefore urges the Commission to vigorously defend its 2004 Decision. |
Microsoft is merely trying to delay the proceedings and to avoid effective implementation of the commission's decision until it has no meaning at all. |
Microsoft is perhaps the most powerful company in the world. Companies have legitimate reasons to fear retribution for making their concerns known. |
Microsoft is repeatedly engaging in clearly illegal, anti-competitive behavior because the benefits of extinguishing competition clearly outweigh the costs. |
Microsoft is trying to turn this into an intellectual property case when it's not...This is a case about abuse of a dominant position, about refusing to provide information to vendors. |
Microsoft only started mentioning intellectual property rights once it was clear it would lose the case two years ago. It's an after-the-facts strategy and I hope the judge will see it for what it is. |
Most software makers reveal for free the sort of information Microsoft is being ordered to license, because anyone not in a monopoly situation has every interest in making their software as widely available as possible. |
People don't pay $761 million dollars unless your opponent has a pretty solid case, |
People don't pay $761 million dollars unless your opponent has a pretty solid case. |
Software companies know how to write interface specifications [to ensure interoperability with other companies' products]. They do it all the time and so does Microsoft. But they're not doing it here because they don't want to. |
The commission has a very strong case, I think the strongest it's ever had. |
The credibility of the Commission is at stake, and the meaningfulness of the decision is at stake, so I don't think the Commission is going to allow delay. |
The draft law does a good job in preserving and solidifying the country of origin principle for e-commerce, but it is not good news for offline publishers, |
The draft law does a good job in preserving and solidifying the country of origin principle for e-commerce, but it is not good news for offline publishers. |
The judge was just being provocative. |