We will look at the Polish response carefully.

I can confirm the Commission is due to consider sending a letter to Poland warning Poland the Commission considers that they may be in breach of Article 21 of the merger regulations, which gives the...

It’s the quality and not the quantity that counts. You can give half-a-million pages, but if it’s not the right information for competitors to be able to make compatible work group server products then it...

We welcome in particular the fact that the court confirmed that discriminatory pricing agreements for domestic sales and exports to the detriment of consumers in other member states are an illegal, restrictive business practice.

Car prices have increased less than the price of inflation.

The commission will remain determined to ensure full compliance with the March 2004 decision. The commission is obliged under treaty rules to ensure the proper application of the competition law to the benefit of consumers...

They have made a request, which is currently under consideration, and we will make a decision before the 25th.

The Commission has not been told about this offer by Microsoft. The only information we have is what they have given to the press.

Several companies have expressed their concerns to the Commission concerning Microsoft’s Vista operating system.

Microsoft has to comply with the March 2004 decision, not with their interpretation of the March 2004 decision.

Professor Barrett is a leading and well-respected computer expert whose name was suggested to the Commission by Microsoft .

The Commission would like nothing better than to put outstanding issues with Microsoft behind us.

If they do not share our point of view, they are of course free to go back to the court if they want to.

We can only begin our analysis once we have received the details in writing and so far all we have received is the press release.

It is part of the trustee’s mandate to have these contacts.

It would be premature to conclude that offering access to source codes would necessarily resolve the problem of compliance.

They are not the judge. We are the judge,

Microsoft is not disclosing complete and accurate interface information to allow non-Microsoft workgroup servers to receive full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers.

It will be at least several weeks because it’s a complicated matter and we will have to digest very carefully the information that we obtain from the hearings and the information that we have obtained...

The monitor is an adviser to the European Commission and does not make proposals.

It is now one year since the Court of First Instance confirmed that Microsoft had to comply with the remedies imposed by the March 2004 decision.

As a result of our investigation and our contact with the two companies, they have now amended their practices so that consumers will now be able to buy other brands of cars from dealerships that...

We have 25 working days to decide whether we think there may be some negative impact on effective competition or not.

We have confirmed the deadline of February 15 on the basis that nearly eight weeks should be sufficient for Microsoft to reply to a comparatively short statement of objections.

Member states cannot intervene on competition grounds on mergers of European dimension.

It will be at least several weeks.

I can confirm that the European Commission has received the complaints and will examine them carefully.

The role of the European Commission is to ensure proper application of EU competition rules to benefit consumers and companies in Europe, not for the benefit of one company.

The onus is on Microsoft to explain, in its reply to the statement of objections today, precisely why and how making the source code available would bring it into compliance with the remedy.

Fines are not the ideal outcome.

It didn’t think of popping around the corner and popping a copy through the door.

We would have preferred obviously that Microsoft complied quickly as they indicated this time last year that they would. I would like to stress that we expect of course Microsoft to comply with the March...

What they have done is insufficient. It’s now two years since the decision.

Governments do not have right to take measures relating to competition, if it is a merger that falls under our (jurisdiction).

We are not moving the goalposts as has been suggested. We are not changing our demands.

It is therefore premature for Microsoft to claim that the Commission has prejudiced their rights of defense.

Experience clearly shows that where there is more competition on a market, prices fall.

The goalposts have not moved… We are not making new and changing demands. We simply request that Microsoft comply with what is in the March 2004 decision… Nothing more, nothing less.

totally block access to and from France.

They are contesting our decision on legal grounds in court, and we will fight them on that. Our own investigation of Poland’s 1999 privatization rules will continue.

It’s not necessary for Microsoft to go beyond what we are asking for. It would be quite sufficient for them to do what they are supposed to do in accordance with the decision of March...

It would be premature to conclude access to the source code would resolve the problem of the lack of compliance with our decision.

We are taking a close interest in the situation. There has been informal contact with the Polish authorities in the past few months.

Microsoft asked us what could be problematic with Vista, so we told them.

Microsoft has requested an extension [to that deadline].

Microsoft is very attached, as you know, to business secrets — its own business secrets.

The commission regulation on procedures in antitrust cases is very explicit. It says oral hearings should not be held in public.

The European Commission is not intending at the moment to open a new case against Microsoft. The Commission is, however, determined to ensure the proper application of the March 2004 decision and in particular the...

We think he will be a truly independent adviser.

The Commission did this because it has reason to believe that the companies concerned may have violated rules on cartels and restricted business practices.