The Justice Department and the Commission’s competition department have regular contact on this case.

The Commission’s hearing officer maintained her position that correspondence between the Commission and the trustee and technical experts is internal.

It’s all very well to give 12,000 pages — they could give half a million — but if it’s not the right information for competitors to make Microsoft-compatible workgroup servers it doesn’t resolve the compliance...

There is also the possibility that we won’t have all the necessary technical information so that competitors will be able to make a product that is compatible with Vista.

If the Court of First Instance upholds the March 2004 decision then it should be possible for the protocols that do not embody innovations to be circulated under open-source licenses.

There’s no way of telling if (the response) will arrive at 11:59.

We assume Microsoft has its own interest at heart and it wants to launch another product without having to worry about the Commission instituting various actions under antitrust law because of this product.

The Department of Justice is also stating that Microsoft is failing to provide requisite technical information.

We hope he will announce measures to ensure compliance. We hope that clarifies the position.

Our independent trustee, who is advising the Commission and who was suggested to us by Microsoft, Professor Neil Barrett, has told us the document is, to quote, ‘totally useless’.

I can confirm that the deadline is today, before midnight. A decision has not yet been taken, but I hope for all our sakes that it will be taken as early as possible.

She refused the extension on the grounds that the time period of eight weeks should be sufficient for Microsoft.

It’s not as if we intend to introduce some major shift in approach. It’s rather that we will assess in 2007 whether, in light of the cases that we’ve been dealing with, it would be...

Microsoft will have the opportunity to explain how this technical support is relevant to the March 2004 decision.

Whether or not the new transaction will have to be re-notified will be something that the parties and the lawyers of the parties will have to study very carefully. If, for example, it is a...

The deadline is midnight (2300 GMT). There is no way of telling if it will arrive at 11:59 (2259 GMT) tonight or earlier. The decision on whether or not we need to impose these daily...

It is the commission that decides if Microsoft is in compliance with the ruling, not Microsoft.

We were intending to send the statement of objections in the next few weeks.

We have not been moving the goal posts despite what some people have said.

We’ll have to look at the deal and reply afterwards.

It is part of the obligation of the trustee to proactively make contact with third parties and discuss what information they require to make interoperable products.

I can confirm the deadline is today before midnight. The decision hasn’t yet been taken. When the decision is taken, I will send out a statement.

She took the view that a time period of eight weeks should be sufficient for Microsoft to reply to a comparatively short statement of objections.

The commission will be explaining to the court why it considers the decision of March 2004 was well-founded.

She said, ‘I want a better set of remedies,’ and she got them. She’s a good negotiator.

Given we have never seen players taken on for 10 years, there seems to be a problem here.

But the writing is on the wall.

We will examine the complaints carefully to see if there has been any violation of EU competition rules.

We wanted to set the record straight.

Microsoft is obliged to comply with the remedies which were imposed in the commission’s 2004 decision, nothing more nothing less. We are not moving the goalposts as has been suggested, we are not changing our...

The only plan professor Barrett has presented was in January, when he proposed that he work with Microsoft engineers to improve the documentation.

It’s not the kind of normal thing we do, but we have done so because Microsoft is alleging the trustee acted in an inappropriate manner in terms of contacting other companies. We wanted to make...

We have no reason to believe that they will not make final offer before midnight. We have no reason to believe that Microsoft will not respect the decision made in 2004.

The hearing officer maintained her position that the correspondence is internal and in principle irrelevant for the purposes of Microsoft’s rights of defense.

However, technical support is only helpful once the documentation has reached a certain quality standard … the Commission’s preliminary view is that the technical documentation still does not comply with the requirements of the decision.

We have not yet agreed (on) the trustee with Microsoft.

The Commission welcomes the ruling and will have a more detailed statement at midday.

We are carefully analyzing (Microsoft’s) reply and after they have had the opportunity to present their arguments at the oral hearing we will decide whether or not to impose a daily fine.

It wants to launch another product without having to worry about the [European] Commission instituting various actions under antitrust law. The commission’s concern is that computer manufacturers or consumers might be prevented from having a...

It would be no good if one broadcaster claimed 99% and the other only 1% of the matches.

It’s not comparable to a seller on the high street where the customer has a choice of supply. It’s a company with a dominant market position. The commission has found Microsoft to be abusing that...

He is an advisor, he doesn’t make plans.

[We would hope to have a decision] before summer holidays, … European institutions tend to knock off the month of August.

We are going to follow the situation very attentively.

The commission expects Microsoft to respect the principles established by the March 2004 decision when designing and implementing Vista.

The investigation is in the early stages.

We are of the opinion that Microsoft is not in compliance. We are still expecting a reply to our statement of objections.

It is one year since the Court of First Instance confirmed Microsoft had to comply with the March 2004 decision. The Commission regrets Microsoft has failed to do so. We would prefer Microsoft to comply...

If the Commission is not satisfied with the Polish authorities’ response, it would have the possibility of adopting a formal decision declaring that Poland was in breach of Article 21 of the merger regulations.

We will look at the Polish response carefully.