Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 14th Jul 2006 21:08 UTC
Microsoft In a Q&A, Neelie Kroes, who fined MS for not complying with the EC's antitrust ruling, said: "I regret that the Commission has had to take such a step today, but given Microsoft's continued non-compliance to date, I have been left with no alternative. Today's decision reflects my determination to ensure that Microsoft complies with its obligations.Microsoft has claimed that its obligations in the decision are not clear, or that the obligations have changed. I cannot accept this characterisation - Microsoft's obligations are clearly outlined in the 2004 decision and have remained constant since then."
Permalink for comment 143120
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Outrageous
by MollyC on Sat 15th Jul 2006 02:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Outrageous"
Member since:

"You do know the difference between OPEN APIs and OPEN SOURCE APIs? If not I think you've got quite some reading to do before you make your next comment."

Do you know the difference between internal functions and public APIs? From what I've read, the Windows network protocol isn't so much a "protocol" as it is a bunch of RPC calls, similar to how a program (say, a spreadsheet program, for example) consists of a bunch of internal function calls rather than some "public protocol". Now let's say you developed a spreadsheet program, then big government demanded that your internal functions be turned into public APis and that a public "protocol" be documented consistent with those functions and the calls made to them. Now do you see how stupid this is?

If you've ever developed a large program, I'm sure you can imagine the difficulty in coming up with a "public protocol" based on your internal functions; functions that were never intended to be public, and therefore aren't documented in a way that would be suitable for public consumption; functions that are called by the program as needed rather than according to some "protocol". That's one reason why Microsoft offered to just gave the source code, because there was no "protocol" per se, to be documented as such.

Oh, and the EU guy is full of crap. If the EU's demands were so clear, how come they issued clarified requests in March 2006 and came up with a new timetable, the final deadline of which is July 18? Which shows that the EU is even more full of crap, in that they come up with a new deadline of July 18, then issue fines 7 days before that deadline.

Reply Parent Score: -2