07.08.08
Convicted Monopolist ‘Attacks’ the European Commission
“The government is not trying to destroy Microsoft, it’s simply seeking to compel Microsoft to obey the law. It’s quite revealing that Mr. Gates equates the two.”
–Government official
How ‘dare’ anyone mess with Microsoft and impose the law upon it? How ‘dare’ anybody fine the company for refusing to comply with the law? This was mentioned very briefly yesterday and now comes some more coverage. Groklaw writes:
Microsoft to EU Commission: We’re Not the Bad Guy; You Are
Yes, the EU Commission is the defendant. It seems it neglected to believe Microsoft’s experts about how valuable its patents are. And it accuses the Commission of accepting reports from the trustee, whom Microsoft hand-picked, by the way, based on “documents obtained through powers of investigation that the Court of First Instance held to be unlawful.” Whoah. No more Mr. Nice Guy for Microsoft, I see.
The Register writes: Microsoft criticizes EU’s ‘unreasonable’ judgement
According to Microsoft, the Commission made a “manifest error” in deciding its prices were unreasonable saying the prices were “intended to facilitate negotiations between Microsoft and the prospective licensees.”
Among other claims, Microsoft said the Commission had ignored evidence from patent experts on the subject of whether Microsoft’s trade secrets were innovative, and it had denied Microsoft a right to be heard as it failed to give Microsoft the chance to give its views at the end of the period for which it was fined.
A lot of this coverage broke out after the Reuters story bearing the headline “Microsoft says EU court’s fine ‘excessive’.” Electronista suggests that the EC remains very confident about its decision.
The European Commission’s response in court hasn’t been revealed, though the organization maintains that the $1.4 billion fine was “legally sound,” according to spokesman Jonathan Todd.
Ask Scott Fulton what it is which makes Microsoft a spoiled brat, envisioning itself as above international laws. The remedy for this may need to be as radical as the corporate culture. █
Highlight: Novell was the first to acknowledge that Microsoft FUD tactics had substance. Novell then used anti-Linux FUD to market itself. 
Highlight: Xandros let Microsoft make patent claims and brag about (paid-for) OOXML support. 
Highlight: Linspire's CEO not only fell into Microsoft arms, but he also assisted the company's attack on GNU/Linux. 
Highlight: Microsoft craves pseudo (proprietary) standards and gets its way using proxies and influence which it buys. 
Highlight: The invasion into the open source world is intended to leave Linux companies neglected, due to financial incentives from Microsoft. 
Analysis: Xen, an open source hypervisor, possibly fell victim to Microsoft's aggressive (and stealthy) acquisition-by-proxy strategy.