Which side is playing the Soviet Union this time? Those who continue to try to hold their digital citizens in with barbed wire and machine guns, or those who ultimately believe freedom is the only way to go?

It's going to be a long, and fairly unpleasant fight between Microsoft and the rest of the IT industry, but there is no doubt how it's going to end. Dictatorships just cannot outfight democracies.

Our supporters should ask themselves why it takes years to enforce moderate sanctions and whether additional sanctions such as a sales stop, structural remedies, or criminal sanctions are required for a market as dynamic as software. The risk of undue political influence is just too high. And - of course - what can be done by the use of more proactive measures such as interoperability enforcement provisions and interoperability frameworks. We had good interoperability provisions in the Parliament's "CII-Directive". And if these concerned citizens digg into it and are puzzled they might want to ask their MEPs.

It is not difficult to find out what goes wrong. While the Commission GD competition won recently the case it remains a farce! And would they appeal again?

Rather than complaining about MS Word support I would ask for a complete ban on Word2007 and its Open XML format.

And former officials who publish lobby garbage such as

With the collapse of the former Soviet Union, I thought the days of property expropriation in Europe were over. …

for a company that pretends not to understand antitrust laws should face a severe cut of their pensions. The argument is that silly in the IPR context and antitrust that you only find it in the writing of some US tobacco guys. Why should Pat Cox act as a proxy for applied cold war rhetorics from American rednecks? Why should the public compensate him when he sells his reputation to a company from a third nation?

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sidesSearch/search.do?type=QP&term=6&author=2037&language=EN&startValue=0#

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4546/07
by Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE)
to the Commission

Subject: Technology incentives and IP protection

According to a recent survey by the IT analysts Ovum, UK technology leaders indicated that they would not invest in the European IT sector in light of the policies DG Comp has been advocating to weaken intellectual property protection.

Can you explain what incentive technology companies have to invest in Europe when their valuable IP can be expropriated by the Commission?

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4542/07
by Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE)
to the Commission

Subject: Microsoft and transatlantic trade relations

There is growing concern that the Commission’s regulatory pursuit of Microsoft will drive technological innovation offshore as businesses are discouraged from introducing innovative features. Many feel this approach threatens to impact directly on transatlantic relations, as US administrators find it increasingly difficult to defend European motives in this area.

Does the Commission have a view on how its actions in the Microsoft case will affect transatlantic trade relations?

Other MEPs ask questions that might compromise Us trade relations:

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4513/06
by Jules Maaten (ALDE), Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) and Paul van Buitenen (Verts/ALE)
to the Commission

Subject: Employment of a European official by a consultancy advising Microsoft
1.Is it true that a European Commission official who played a leading part in dealing with the legal issues relating to Microsoft is spending a sabbatical year in the employment of a consultancy which is working for Microsoft?

2.If so, what measures will the Commission take to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interests and to prevent the official concerned from returning to the Commission?

3.How will the Commission - possibly with the aid of the criminal law - prevent the person concerned from using inside knowledge of European affairs for the benefit of Microsoft?

4.Will the Commission amend the rules applicable to officials in order to prevent any recurrence of this unacceptable situation?

or

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1709/06
by Jens-Peter Bonde (IND/DEM)
to the Council

Subject: Consultant services for Microsoft

Have previous judges at the court in Luxembourg acted as consultants to Microsoft for payment and is it in accordance with prevailing ethics and sound administrative practice to do so?

Sorry, I haven't found the official answers in the register, yet. Shouldn't government bureaucrats get into real business? Aren't judges good legal advisors? Btw., I only recently learned that Mrs. Belz from Microsoft Germany had also worked for the Commission. Also in the register: Here she invites Mr. Poettering, the current Parl president, to a Cebit event. I forgot the name of the company the former Parliament president Cox works for, what was the name of the company?

With the collapse of the former Soviet Union, I thought the days of property expropriation in Europe were over. Now I wonder, following the European Commission's latest policy twist in its interminable case against Microsoft. ..What does it mean for the European Patent Office? How would it affect commission efforts at patent reform? … European policymakers should wake up and remind their DG-Competition colleagues that junking conventional wisdom and standard practice on intellectual property is not the right way to build a dynamic and innovative European economy.

Uih. Never criticize us again, crackpotism sells and gets you the Charlemagne prize for your Euro-achievements; Btw.: Charlesmagne became popular for slaughtering Widukind's Saxons. And Pat Cox is not Saxon but Irish and Ireland is owned by… Okay stop this. Even during the CII directive fight Pat's lobbying had zero influence, next: Wasn't a former Berlin Economic Affairs Senator later responsible for Microsoft Public Sector relations in Berlin, Branoner or so? All these transparency fanatics, bah! WRITTEN QUESTION E-4513/06 by Jules Maaten (ALDE), Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) and Paul van Buitenen. They are just envy because they don't get the top jobs. Hmm. MEP van Buitenen - that is the Dutch guy who worked for the Commission himself(!) and blew the whistle? That's him! Poor Santer Commission, a troublemaker par excellence. Won't work this time.

For another question we have an answer in the register

Question by István Szent-Iványi (ALDE)
to the Commission

Subject: Proceedings against the Microsoft Corporation

According to a Commission Decision of March 2004 the Microsoft Corporation is required to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers. The disclosed information will have to be updated each time Microsoft brings to the market new versions of the relevant products.

In the Commission's view, is this requirement sufficiently clear, accurate and unambiguous so as to expect swift and prompt compliance from the addressed party?

In the Commission's view, is this requirement in line with the standards previously applied by the Commission in similar relevant cases?

This is what Commissioner Kroes answered who was not the fangirl anymore:

P-1895/06EN
Answer given by Mrs Kroes
on behalf of the Commission
(1.6.2006)

As the Honourable Member indicates in his question, the 24 March 2004 Decision1 orders Microsoft to disclose complete and accurate specifications for the protocols used by Windows work group servers in order to provide file, print and group and user administration services to Windows work group networks. This includes both direct interconnection and interaction between a Windows work group server and a Windows client personal computer (PC), as well as interconnection and interaction between a Windows work group server and a Windows client PC that is indirect and passes through another Windows work group server. The use of the term “specifications” makes clear that Microsoft should not be required to disclose its own implementation of these specifications, that is to say, its own source code. The term “protocol” relates to the rules of interconnection and interaction between instances of the Windows client PC operating system and the Windows work group server operating system.
The Commission considers that the disclosure order laid down in the 24 March 2004 Decision is clear as to the steps Microsoft has to undertake to comply with it. Unfortunately, and because of Microsoft’s failure to comply with the disclosure order, the Commission issued a decision on 10 November 2005 pursuant to Article 24(1) of Council Regulation (EC) N° 1/20032. This Decision warned that, should Microsoft not comply by 15 December 2005 with its obligation to: (i) supply complete and accurate interoperability information; and (ii) make that information available on reasonable terms, it would face a daily fine of up to €2 million. The administrative procedure is currently ongoing.
The disclosure order is based on the definition of interoperability that is given in recital 10 of the Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs3, i.e. a logical and, where appropriate, physical interconnection and interaction is required to permit all elements of software and hardware to work with other software and hardware and with users in all the ways in which they are intended to function.
As regards the standards applied by the Commission in similar previous cases, the Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to Commission Case IV/29.479. The Commission suspended its investigation, which had started in the 1970s, following what is known as the 1984 International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) Undertaking4. As part of that undertaking, IBM agreed to disclose, in a timely manner, sufficient interface information to enable competing companies in the Community to attach both hardware and software products of their design to System/370. Furthermore, IBM agreed to disclose adequate and timely information to competitors to enable them to interconnect their systems or networks with IBM’s System/370 using a set of network protocols which IBM had developed, its “Systems Network Architecture” (“SNA”). As in the IBM case, the Commission’s approach in the Microsoft case constitutes a careful and balanced judgment with regard to the disclosure obligation and takes into account Microsoft’s and its competitors’ incentives to innovate.

Ooops that is long and its old, but what about something new? A 09/05/07 question on the software patents directive that Parliament killed in 2005.

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2543/07
by José Manuel García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE)
to the Commission

Subject: Computer-Implemented Inventions Directive

The Computer-Implemented Inventions Directive could not be adopted in 2005, as the Commission had proposed. Since that time, the world of technology has seen an upswing in disputes and tensions, competition from the Asian economies has heightened and there is now a widespread need on the one hand to harmonise the different systems for the granting of patents followed by the European Patents Office and the Member States and, on the other hand, to adopt measures to help protect European technological innovations, in order to ensure that investment in innovation is cost-effective and sustainable.

Recent European Commission decisions, such as the Statement of Objections of 1.3.2007 (Microsoft case) have led some experts to consider that the notion of what should and should not be patentable on the basis of its innovative nature, the notion of technological innovation itself and also the type of effective protection merited by technological innovation, especially as regards patents already granted, are all being reinterpreted.

Does the Commission intend to bring forward a new proposal for a Computer-Implemented Inventions Directive? On what grounds would it do this?
[…]

Why should European innovators and SMEs suffer again because a US company needs to artificially shield its document formats against competition? Of course we need a directive, but a directive that ultimately bans software patents, keeps the EPO in check and enforces full interoperability. Why don't you contact your MEPs? Most of them will do what they can to support you, a reasonable citizen from their electorate. Most members of Parliament are great guys who do their very best! They kill swpat directives. They criticise a broken patent system where they can, they insist on data protection standards, care about SME needs, push for open standards, want to see EU transparency and democratic rule improved and they can't stand the lobby smell. They can pose any question they like to the Commission or the Council and there are so many open questions here. You can make a difference! I am looking forward to read the questions of your MEPs in the Europarl register!