Why hold a hearing in the EU if key decision makers are unable to attend?

re: Why hold a hearing in the EU if key decision makers are unable to attend?

Anonymous — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:35:25 GMT

With the exception of the Competition Commissioner, which is about as senior as you get. But I guess you got cold feet when you realized that she would be there? "Given the importance of this case, we simply wanted to be sure that the hearing would be conducted on dates when the relevant decision makers could attend."

re: Why hold a hearing in the EU if key decision makers are unable to attend?

Anonymous — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:34:55 GMT

I was amazed how Europe’s greatest patriot was so cruelly used by the European Court System! And now I read this. Five Hundred years later, and Europe still doesn’t know how to conduct a fair trial!

re: Why hold a hearing in the EU if key decision makers are unable to attend?

Anonymous — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:34:22 GMT

Why not include a basic browser, which can link European users to a CHOICE of Web browsers? that would make the User's choice of Web browsers alot easier.

re: Why hold a hearing in the EU if key decision makers are unable to attend?

Anonymous — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:33:52 GMT

You were offered a trial time. You could make it, but the Obama administration couldn't make it. What's your point? You need a presidential "we're innocent" card to validate your point?

re: Why hold a hearing in the EU if key decision makers are unable to attend?

Anonymous — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:33:21 GMT

Call what it is a tax. OEMs can install any browser. Why does the EU not sue the them because they don't pre-install another browser. Why does the EU not sue Google for paying to have Chrome pre-installed by OEMs at the exclusion of other third party browsers. This has nothing to do with competition. It is a tax by the EU on a non-EU company. IE is not perfect, but it is competitive against the other browsers. If the EU wanted to protect Internet users they would force the browsers to work together against cybercriminals. But they are doing the opposite by forcing Opera and Safari (and other insecure browsers) to be preinstalled on a PC requireing users to make a decision on what browser will protect them, when they are not qualified to decide.

re: Why hold a hearing in the EU if key decision makers are unable to attend?

Anonymous — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:32:46 GMT

@Dave Heiner, this is truly disgusting. You aren't even addressing the gist of the issue, which is that you lied. These hearings are only attended by staff level officials anyway, none of the higher ups you worried about not being there. With the exceptio

re: Why hold a hearing in the EU if key decision makers are unable to attend?

Anonymous — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:32:13 GMT

Hi Alan! Exactly, worst case gone worse. Microsoft does a Lemming and the question is: why? www.jimmyr.com/.../Bunny_Suicide_Comic_Pics_226_2007.php

re: Why hold a hearing in the EU if key decision makers are unable to attend?

Anonymous — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:31:40 GMT

From what I understand the commission was taking this hearing so seriously they were putting forward Neelie Kroes the European Commissioner for Competition herself to attend this meeting. If that is the case I am surprised that you didn't mention it in your blog post.

re: Why hold a hearing in the EU if key decision makers are unable to attend?

Anonymous — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:31:10 GMT

Microsoft is not required to get a hearing. It is an opportunity for the software company. The event in Switzerland is in no way relevant to the case. The argument reveals either utter incompetence of the persons involved in EU public policy or a lost case with a desperate attempt to get a delay. This is not "Bobby Fisher in Iceland", if your company does not want a hearing they don't get it. If your company does not attend its own hearing, only the competitors will be heard. "As a result, it appears that many of the most influential Commission and national competition officials with the greatest interest in our case will be in Zurich and so unable to attend our hearing in Brussels. We raised concerns about this scheduling conflict with the Commission the very same day we were notified of the proposed hearing date. We asked the Commission to consider alternative dates and expressed our serious concern that holding a hearing during the same days as the ICN would make it much more difficult for the Commission’s and Member States’ key decision makers to attend." From a professional lobbying perspective that sounds absolutely clueless to me. What does the Microsoft expect? If the Microsoft hearing was important no one would attend the lousy conference. In what way are national competition officials relevant to a decision of the Commission? The Commission scheduled a date for the event for you. It is not upon you to change it. "We pointed out that there’s no legal or other reason that the hearing needs to be held the first week of June. We believe that holding the hearing at a time when key officials are out of the country would deny Microsoft our effective right to be heard and hence deny our “rights of defense” under European law." Have you any clue how the competition thing in Brussels works? Those arguments only apply during the FIFA World Cup.

re: Why hold a hearing in the EU if key decision makers are unable to attend?

Anonymous — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:30:35 GMT

Thanks all for your comments. I thought it might be helpful to address two points raised in the comments that appear to reflect a factual misunderstanding. First, it is not true that Microsoft prohibits computer manufacturers from installing non-Microsoft browsers. Under their contracts with Microsoft, computer manufacturers are free to install any software they like on their PCs. In fact, for browsers and certain other categories of software this is guaranteed by the court rulings in the U.S. government case against Microsoft. Computer manufacturers can set any browser to be the default browser and even configure Windows so that IE does not appear to be present. The fact that computer manufacturers can install any browser, and that users can install any browser, is part of the reason why Microsoft believes that including IE in Windows is lawful. I also wanted to clarify that Microsoft was not seeking anything out of the ordinary with respect to the hearing. The fact that these hearings are conducted behind closed doors, for example, is standard. Given the importance of this case, we simply wanted to be sure that the hearing would be conducted on dates when the relevant decision makers could attend.