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...