EU slams Microsoft for antitrust inaction

Microsoft is accused of failing to disclose 'complete and accurate' interface documentation

Microsoft has come under fire from the European Commission for failing to meet the obligations laid out in its March 2004 antitrust ruling.

In particular, the EC indicated that Microsoft had not yet complied with its obligation to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation.

This material would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers.

Neil Barrett, the monitoring trustee appointed from a shortlist of candidates proposed by Microsoft, said that Redmond had not met a request from the EC to review the submitted technical documentation.

Although Barrett acknowledged that Microsoft's submission had improved slightly, he insisted that "nothing substantial was added" compared to the previous version, and "the material continues to be incomplete, inaccurate and unusable".

The EC has also sent Microsoft a report from Taeus Europe, a Colorado-based firm that specialises in intellectual property valuation, reverse engineering, litigation support and expert testimony.

Taeus has analysed the reports from Barrett and has also looked at Microsoft's documentation. The report describes various parts of the documentation as "entirely inadequate", "devoted to obsolete functionality" and "self-contradictory".

Taeus concluded that Microsoft's documentation was written "primarily to maximise [page count] while minimising useful information".

In addition, both reports point out that Microsoft appears to assume that it is for users of the documentation to report incorrect, incomplete or inaccurate information which Microsoft would then correct.

"The response that such 'bugs' in the documentation are unavoidable is understandable, but to expect that all such subsequent problems will be encountered and reported by users is not sufficient," said Barrett. "It is Microsoft's responsibility to present suitable documentation."

Taeus compared this to a car manufacturer responding to a customer complaint that a car had been delivered without wheels.

"This would be like the manufacturer supplying wheels only to have the next deficiency come up, namely that the automobile has no engine, and then no steering wheel, then no brakes, etc," said Barrett.

After a hearing this month, the EC may take other steps to continue the daily fine until Microsoft complies with the March 2004 decision.