Original URL: http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2006/04/27/ms_v_ec_dayfour_qanda/
MS v EC The morning Q & A session was led by Judge John D Cooke - the judge-rapporteur who will compile the Court’s final decision.
He began by questioning how far the Commission wishes to remove interoperability from the competition equation. Mr Whelan, for the Commission, said that interoperability was only the start of a process of competing.
Cooke wanted to know to what extent servers from other vendors, like Novell and Sun, were able to interoperate seamlessly as required by the Commission’s decision. Whelan said any products using open standards like L DAP do interoperate but Microsoft’s barrister Mr Forrester said Sun and Novell were not replaceable within the “blue bubble” - Microsoft’s analogy for workgroup servers' “special relationship”.
Judge Cooke turned his attention to Samba founder Andrew Tridgell and asked him if he accepted Microsoft’s assertion that communication within the blue bubble or workgroup was more intense or intimate communication.
Tridgell did not. He said: “Not only are the protocols not unique in nature within the bubble or even more intense. Printing, surprisingly, is a very intense process and it's not uncommon for client machines to even send actual code.”
Cooke turned back to Microsoft and asked if they believed that the decision meant they would have to release more than protocol specifications for a rival firm to achieve interoperability. Mr Forrester said the demand for “equivalent functionality” meant the software giant would have to hand over more than just protocols.
Mr Whelan, for the Commission, said Microsoft was exaggerating the amount of information required to achieve interoperability.
Under further questioning from the terrier-like Judge Cooke Forrester said Microsoft did not believe they could give information for interoperability without giving away patented information.
Next Cooke put the Commission back through the wringer suggesting the Commission was asking for valuable commercial information. Whelan said: “We accept it has a value to those who do not have it, and that’s its value to its owners too.®
Microsoft hit by two more EC probes (14 January 2008)
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2008/01/14/microsoft_hit_new_ec_probes/
Samba shakes hands with Microsoft (21 December 2007)
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2007/12/21/samba_microsoft_agreement/
What does Microsoft's European defeat mean? (18 September 2007)
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2007/09/18/microsoft_lost_appeal_impact/
Microsoft: no plan to appeal EC verdict for now (17 September 2007)
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2007/09/17/microsoft_no_appeal_commission/
Microsoft vs European Commission: the verdict (17 September 2007)
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2007/09/17/microsoft_european_commission_verdict/
Microsoft awaits European Court decision (14 September 2007)
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2007/09/14/microsoft_competition_appeal_verdict/
European Court schedules Microsoft verdict (17 July 2007)
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2007/07/17/ec_microsoft_verdict/
Microsoft files final documents with European Commission (1 August 2006)
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2006/08/01/microsoft_files_ec/
EC vs. MS: IT depts find a champ in Europe (12 July 2006)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/12/microsoft_ec_fine_analysis/
Commission talks MS sanctions next week (7 July 2006)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/07/decision_coming_for_microsoft/
Microsoft fines OK'd - reports (4 July 2006)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/04/microsoft_ec_fines/
EC polishing big stick for Microsoft (27 June 2006)
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2006/06/27/ec_microsoft/
Fine looms, as Microsoft sees EU settlement recede (6 June 2006)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/06/microsoft_eu_homework/
MS vs. EC: Why the fine is unfair and the trustee appointment is wrong (29 April 2006)
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2006/04/29/ms_ec_trial_friday_afternoon/
Bill Gates' letter to hobbyists (en Français, 2006) (28 April 2006)
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2006/04/28/ec_microsoft_analysis/
Samba speaks as commission interveners cut in (27 April 2006)
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2006/04/27/ms_v_ec_day_four_morning/
Commission rejects MS server claims and demo (26 April 2006)
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2006/04/26/ms_ec_day_three_afternoon/
Microsoft talks up interoperability (26 April 2006)
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2006/04/26/ms_ec_day_three/
When is an application not an application? (25 April 2006)
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2006/04/25/ec_v_ms_questions/
Media Player summed up (25 April 2006)
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2006/04/25/ms_vs_ec_daytwo/
Commission solves Windows XPN mystery (24 April 2006)
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2006/04/24/dayone_microsoft_trial/
How many copies of XP without media player have you seen? (24 April 2006)
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2006/04/24/ms_trial_first_morning/
Microsoft, EC take positions (24 April 2006)
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2006/04/24/ms_ec_trial_begins/
© Copyright 2008