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.

We are concerned about the possibility that Vista will include software elements which are available separately, either sold by Microsoft or by other software companies.

We will take into account what was said at the hearing and the documents submitted before we make a decision. It will take several weeks.

This date has now been pushed back to Feb 15.

It is in Microsoft’s own interest to clarify these issues as soon as possible so as not to have any doubts about the legality of Vista hanging in the air.

the EC will continue to work to ensure Microsoft’s total compliance with the March 2004 decision.

They should have challenged the decision nominating him, which outlined the terms and conditions of his relationship with the Commission.

I would like to point out, however, that we have excellent cooperation with U.S. antitrust authorities.

I can confirm that Microsoft did make a formal request for the hearing to be public and the request was refused by the hearing officer because the procedural regulation explicitly prohibits this.

The Commission remains committed to ensuring full compliance with its March 2004 decision.

The deadline is midnight. There is no way of telling if it will arrive at 11:59 tonight or earlier. The decision on whether or not we need to impose these daily fines will be taken...

Spanish authorities need to respect the Commission’s competence.

We are not interested in interfering in the market. But the current situation is illegal.

Let me be clear, the Commission’s position is that Microsoft is obliged to comply with the remedies imposed by the Commission’s March 2004 decision, nothing more, nothing less. We are not moving goal posts, we...

Technical support is only helpful if the documentation has reached a certain standard.

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.