But a war of words erupted between the two parties after
Microsoft accused the Commission of ignoring critical evidence in
its haste to attack its compliance with the ruling.
“Hundreds of Microsoft employees and contractors have worked for
more than 30,000 hours to create over 12,000 pages of detailed
technical documents that are available for license today. In
addition Microsoft has offered to provide licensees with 500 hours
of technical support and has made its source code related to all
the relevant technologies available under a reference licence,” the
company said in its 75-page response.
Microsoft says it has filed with the Commission two independent
expert reports that conclude that the interoperability information
provided by Microsoft meets current industry standards. The company
also accuses the Commission of ignoring key information and denying
Microsoft due process in defending itself.
“The Commission waited many months before informing Microsoft
that it believed changes were necessary to the technical documents,
and then gave Microsoft only a few weeks to make extensive
revisions,” says the filing.
Nor had the Commission and its experts bothered to read the most
recent version of the documents Microsoft had made available in
time for an earlier deadline of 15th December, it says.
In response the Commission advised that it would be considering
the filing carefully but that “It is of course the European
Commission that will decide whether Microsoft is compliant with the
March 2004 Decision, and not Microsoft.”
The Commission stressed that it had repeatedly reminded
Microsoft of the need to provide complete and accurate
specifications and had appointed a Monitoring Trustee (from a panel
suggested by Microsoft) to assess the completeness and accuracy of
the technical documentation.
The Commission then refuted Microsoft’s allegation that neither
it nor the Monitoring Trustee had read the documents provided on
15th December prior to issuing the Statement of Objections on 21st
December.
In fact, says the Commission, this documentation was actually
supplied on 26th December to the Commission, and as it addressed
only "formatting issues" raised by the Monitoring Trustee it was
not substantially different from that which the Commission had
previously examined.
Nor was the source code licence, recently offered by Microsoft,
necessarily a solution to the company’s failure to provide complete
and accurate specifications, said the Commission. It was up to
Microsoft to explain how and why the source code offer was relevant
to ensuring its compliance.
Microsoft has requested an Oral Hearing, which is likely to take
place in the next few weeks.
The Commission will then consult with competition regulators
from the Member States on whether Microsoft has complied with the
March 2004 ruling. If it is found not to have complied then the
Commission may impose daily fines on the firm of up to €2 million,
backdated until 15th December, and running until Microsoft complies
with the ruling.
