Mario Monti rebuttal?
home at alexhudson.com
Wed Mar 24 23:32:52 UTC 2004
On Wed, 2004-03-24 at 22:40, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> However, I see no fine, but a better hidden 'pat in the back, again do
> it not'. Let's see:
> a) they have to have a copy of Windows winthout Media Player
That would be useful, and would set a good precedent too. I don't think
it's necessarily a small thing.
> b) they have to make public the documentation of protocols and
> document formats
> b1) however they may charge RAND if they have patents
I'm not sure about that. The Register are reporting:
The Commission at the moment has not made it clear to whom this
disclosure should be made, whether to named competitors or to
the world in general. It does however concede that if "any of
this interface information might be protected by intellectual
property in the European Economic Area, Microsoft would be
entitled to reasonable remuneration."
Which seems to imply that RAND is not necessarily acceptable. I haven't
looked at the judgement myself - don't have the time :( - but there do
seem to be some teeth in it.
> c) if a) and b) are not fulfilled, fine of 497 Million EUR, an amount
> some say is not significant for Microsoft.
No, the EU PR is clear that the fine is "in addition", not reliant on MS
complying with remedies a & b. MS *has* to do a), b) and also pay the
> I believe this should be brought to the proper authorities. This is a
> scandal IMHO.
Personally, I think it is as strong as we could hope. The precedent of
the media player is important, and the documentation might be useful. I
think it's also something that they can litigate fairly quickly and will
still be relevant when the remedies are affirmed (as they ought to be).
More information about the Discussion