That’s the day Microsoft will learn whether anything has come of its challenge to the $1.14 billion penalty the European Union slapped it with eight years ago for failing to comply with its antitrust decision.

In just over a month’s time, the EU’s General Court will rule on Microsoft’s appeal of the fine, the culmination of a long, contentious legal battle over interoperability. Issued after it was determined that Microsoft had failed to comply with a 2004 antitrust judgment that required the company to charge fair and reasonable rates for its interoperability protocols, the $1.14 billion fine was the largest ever imposed by the EU against a single company, and the very first to be meted out for noncompliance with an EU court order.

It was also, in Microsoft’s opinion, “unnecessary, unlawful and totally disproportionate.”

“This case would not have arisen if the commission had been as explicit with respect to rates which it wanted Microsoft to charge as it had been with all other terms of licensing proposed by Microsoft,” Microsoft’s attorney Jean-François Bellis told the EU General Court at the time the company filed its appeal. “How can the Commission fine Microsoft for failing to apply reasonable rates from June 2006 to October 2007 when the final parameters were only determined on October 22, 2007?”

In short, Microsoft says it failed to comply with the order because EU regulators didn’t give it the guidance it needed to do so. Interesting argument, but will it carry any weight with the EU General Court?

“If you’re considering upgrading Office with Office, we’d encourage you to consider an alternative: upgrading Office with Google Docs,” Glotzbach advised.

“If you choose this path,” he explained, “upgrade means what it’s supposed to mean: effortless, affordable, and delivering a remarkable increase in employee productivity. This is a refreshing alternative to the expensive and laborious upgrades to which IT professionals have become accustomed.”

Fascinating counsel, coming from a company that just a few years ago was insisting that it had no plans whatsoever to compete with Microsoft’s (MSFT) core PC software business, even as it rolled out the pieces of its own hosted desktop productivity suite.

In any event, much as Google (GOOG) claims its efforts are a match for Office, particularly Office 2010, which allows people to edit and collaborate on documents and presentations on the Web, market research says they aren’t perceived that way. And in all likelihood, Microsoft’s 94 percent share of the productivity software market (Gartner) will remain unshaken for some time to come.

To wit, a survey from Forrester Research (FORR) released on the eve of the Office 2010 launch shows quite clearly that Microsoft has little to worry about from Google Apps. Of the 115 North American and European enterprise and SMB decision makers the research house contacted, 81 percent said they use Office 2007, while four percent said they use Google’s productivity offerings. And one third said they plan to upgrade to Office 2010 in the next year.

Why?

Microsoft Office is familiar, and, in many cases, an upgrade to Office 2010 was included in their licenses (click on chart below to enlarge).

So while Google Docs might represent, as the search sovereign argues, “a real alternative for companies: a chance to get the collaboration features you need today and end the endless cycle of ‘upgrades,’” the market doesn’t yet much care. Yet. And that’s all that really matters.

Says Forrester: “The alternatives to Microsoft Office today do not meet the needs of the enterprises Forrester surveyed. Common end user barriers to adoption of alternatives include lack of required functionality, third-party integration requirements, user acceptance, lack of seamless interoperability with Office, and legacy content support needs. These gaps will be bridged in the coming years as Google, OpenOffice.org, and others mature.”

“I’m absolutely of the opinion that this is a trustful deal that we’re making. I trust Microsoft,” Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said during a press conference this morning. “There can’t be a misunderstanding. Here is the final result of a long discussion over a long period.”

Microsoft (MSFT) was equally upbeat on the EC’s decision. “We welcome today’s announcement by the European Commission to move forward with formal market testing of Microsoft’s proposal relating to web browser choice in Europe,” General Counsel Brad Smith said in a statement. “We also welcome the opportunity to take the next step in the process regarding our proposal to promote interoperability with a broad range of our products.”

There were, however, a few that were not so welcoming of the move. Top among them, ECIS, an industry group whose members include Oracle (ORCL), Sun (JAVA), IBM (IBM) and Nokia (NOK). “ECIS notes that the settlement does not appear to deal with the inadequacies of Microsoft’s standards compliance, unfair pricing practices or other concerns related to patent abuse or standards manipulation,” the group said in a statement.

“I’m absolutely of the opinion that this is a trustful deal that we’re making. I trust Microsoft,” Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said during a press conference this morning. “There can’t be a misunderstanding. Here is the final result of a long discussion over a long period.”

Microsoft (MSFT) was equally upbeat on the EC’s decision. “We welcome today’s announcement by the European Commission to move forward with formal market testing of Microsoft’s proposal relating to web browser choice in Europe,” General Counsel Brad Smith said in a statement. “We also welcome the opportunity to take the next step in the process regarding our proposal to promote interoperability with a broad range of our products.”

There were, however, a few that were not so welcoming of the move. Top among them, ECIS, an industry group whose members include Oracle (ORCL), Sun (JAVA), IBM (IBM) and Nokia (NOK). “ECIS notes that the settlement does not appear to deal with the inadequacies of Microsoft’s standards compliance, unfair pricing practices or other concerns related to patent abuse or standards manipulation,” the group said in a statement.

“The commission has endorsed the local sale of the iPhone and the launch of its service within the limits of the law,” said Lee Tae-hee, a spokesman of the Korea Communications Commission. “If Apple includes location based-related details as a form of an agreement to its strategic partners such as KT, Apple’s iPhone can give location-related services here.”

Great news for Apple (AAPL). The South Korean market is a robust one, and analysts say that with the right carrier partner, Cupertino could be looking at sales over the first year ranging from 500,000 to two million. That said, they note that competing with the likes of Samsung and LG on their home turf won’t be easy. Between them, they control about 70 percent of the South Korean handset market.

“There seem to be a lot of people waiting for iPhones to go on sale here but it will not be easy for Apple to crack the Korean market as Samsung and LG already dominate the market with competitive phones,” said Jae Lee, analyst at Daiwa Securities in Seoul. “It will be difficult for Apple to steal market share significantly from the Korean makers in the short term but the iPhone could still be a threat to Samsung and LG in the long term.”

When the iPhone finally does arrive at market in South Korea, it will likely be with KT (formerly known as Korea Telecom) as a carrier partner. As Dan Butterfield over at iPhonAsia notes, KT CFO Yeon-hak Kim suggested as much this past summer. “Apple iPhone will be in our smartphone line-up,” he said in August. “iPhone will help to expand the smartphone market and will contribute to increasing the ARPU (average revenue per user).”

KT officials are telling the Korea Times that they’re looking at a November launch date. “KT has been in talks with Apple to introduce iPhones,” said a KT official. “Sometime in November, the latest iPhone model dubbed as ‘iPhone 3GS’ and its previous model will be commercialized. KT and Apple will decide on the coverage of location-based services.”

In a letter submitted to Apple and Palm today, the group dismissed Palm’s claim that Apple has violated its USB-IF Membership Agreement. Worse, the Forum took issue with Palm’s alleged use of Apple’s vendor identification number, which it says violates USB-IF policy.

Palm (PALM) had argued that Apple (AAPL), by issuing an update to iTunes that used the USB vendor ID number to prevent the software from automatically transferring content to any non-Apple USB device, had violated “the letter and spirit of the USB-IF Membership Agreement,” which is “intended to facilitate interoperability between USB devices, not to regulate the content that flows between them.”

But the USB-IF didn’t quite see things that way. “In the view of the USB-IF, Palm’s allegation (if true) does not establish that Apple is using its Vendor ID (VID) contrary to the USB-IF’s policies,” the group said. “Therefore, under present USB-IF policies, the USB-IF does not consider the alleged use, without more, to be ‘improper.’”

Ugly news for Palm, and it only gets worse–because the USB-IF goes on to suggest that Palm itself is violating its Membership Agreement by using Apple’s vendor ID number to disguise the Pre as an Apple device. From the USB-IF letter:

… Your letter also states that:

“Palm will shortly issue an update of its WebOS operating system that uses Apple’s Vendor ID number for the sole purpose of restoring the Palm media sync functionality.”

I attach for your information the USB-IF’s adopted and published policy regarding Vendor Identification Numbers (VIDs). Under the Policy, Palm may only use the single Vendor ID issued to Palm for Palm’s usage. Usage of any other company’s Vendor ID is specifically precluded. Palm’s expressed intent to use Apple’s VID appears to violate the attached policy.

Please clarify Palm’s intent and respond to this potential violation within seven days.

Uh oh.

Clearly, this isn’t the outcome Palm imagined when it first decided to up the ante in its quaint little cat-and-mouse game with Apple. Reached for comment, Palm had only this to say: “We engaged with the USB-IF because we believe consumers should have freedom and choice in how and where they use the non-rights managed media they already own. We are reviewing the letter from the USB-IF and will respond as appropriate.”

“Microsoft has proposed a consumer ballot screen as a solution to the pending antitrust case,” the Commission said in a press release. “The proposal recognizes the principle that consumers should be given a free and effective choice of Web browser, and sets out a means–the ballot screen–by which Microsoft believes that can be achieved.”

Microsoft (MSFT), for its part, described the move as “a big step forward in addressing a decade of legal issues and would be good news for European consumers and our partners in the industry.”

Below, the EC’s statement in full.

PREVIOUSLY:

• Brussels Palace of Justice Apparently Has Only Single Courtroom
• Great Move, EC. Now We Have to Download IE Ourselves…
• If Windows Didn’t Ship With IE, How Would You Download Firefox?
• Microsoft’s Browser Move to Make Windows Even More Annoying
• European Commission Announces Microsoft Antitrust Fine Ultimate Edition™

MEMO/09/352

Brussels, 24th July 2009

Antitrust: Commission welcomes new Microsoft proposals on Microsoft Internet Explorer and Interoperability

The European Commission can confirm that Microsoft has proposed a consumer ballot screen as a solution to the pending antitrust case about the tying of Microsoft Internet Explorer web browser with Windows. This followed extensive discussions with the Commission which centred on a remedy outlined in the January 2009 Statement of Objections (see MEMO/09/15) whereby consumers would be shown a “ballot screen” from which they could–if they wished–easily install competing web browsers, set one of those browsers as a default, and disable Internet Explorer. Under the proposal, Windows 7 would include Internet Explorer, but the proposal recognises the principle that consumers should be given a free and effective choice of web browser, and sets out a means–the ballot screen–by which Microsoft believes that can be achieved. In addition OEMs would be able to install competing web browsers, set those as default and disable Internet Explorer should they so wish. The Commission welcomes this proposal, and will now investigate its practical effectiveness in terms of ensuring genuine consumer choice.

As the Commission indicated in June (see MEMO/09/272 ), the Commission was concerned that, should Microsoft’s conduct prove to have been abusive, Microsoft’s intention to separate Internet Explorer from Windows, without measures such as a ballot screen, would not necessarily have achieved greater consumer choice in practice and would not have been an effective remedy.

Microsoft has also made proposals in relation to disclosures of interoperability information that would improve the interoperability between third party products and Windows and Windows Server. Again, these proposals require further investigation before the Commission reaches any conclusion as to the next steps.

Microsoft’s proposals will be published in full on its website.

The Commission has no further comment at this stage.

“iTunes 8.2.1 disables devices falsely pretending to be iPods, including the Palm Pre. As we’ve said before, newer versions of Apple’s iTunes software may no longer provide syncing functionality with unsupported digital media players.”

– Apple, July 15, 2009

“Oh, and one more thing: Palm webOS 1.1 re-enables Palm media sync. That’s right–you once again can have seamless access to your music, photos and videos from the current version of iTunes (8.2.1).”

– Palm, July 23, 2009

Devices “falsely pretending to be iPods” can once again sync with iTunes, whether Apple (AAPL) likes it or not.

Palm (PALM) this evening released an update to the Pre’s webOS operating system that restores the iTunes syncing ability disabled by its Cupertino rival only last week.

“Palm has released webOS 1.1, which, along with offering more robust EAS support for business users, re-enables Palm media sync,” said company spokesperson Lynn Fox. “Palm believes that openness and interoperability offer better experiences for users by allowing them the freedom to use the content they own without interference across devices and services, so on behalf of consumers, we have notified the USB Implementers Forum of what we believe is improper use of the Vendor ID number by another member.”

The “oh, and one more thing” was a nice touch. But let’s face it, nothing can come of this but ugliness….

“iTunes 8.2.1 disables devices falsely pretending to be iPods, including the Palm Pre. As we’ve said before, newer versions of Apple’s iTunes software may no longer provide syncing functionality with unsupported digital media players.”

– Apple, July 15, 2009

“Oh, and one more thing: Palm webOS 1.1 re-enables Palm media sync. That’s right–you once again can have seamless access to your music, photos and videos from the current version of iTunes (8.2.1).”

– Palm, July 23, 2009

Devices “falsely pretending to be iPods” can once again sync with iTunes, whether Apple (AAPL) likes it or not.

Palm (PALM) this evening released an update to the Pre’s webOS operating system that restores the iTunes syncing ability disabled by its Cupertino rival only last week.

“Palm has released webOS 1.1, which, along with offering more robust EAS support for business users, re-enables Palm media sync,” said company spokesperson Lynn Fox. “Palm believes that openness and interoperability offer better experiences for users by allowing them the freedom to use the content they own without interference across devices and services, so on behalf of consumers, we have notified the USB Implementers Forum of what we believe is improper use of the Vendor ID number by another member.”

The “oh, and one more thing” was a nice touch. But let’s face it, nothing can come of this but ugliness….

On April 1, 2009, that will all change. The Korea Communications Commission today agreed to lift the WIPI requirement, opening the South Korean market to the iPhone, BlackBerry and other devices to which it had been effectively closed. “Mobile-phone operators have been required to use the WIPI mobile platform on their handsets, but considering global industry trends toward the use of general-purpose mobile operating systems, we concluded that there was a need to allow carriers the freedom to decide whether to use WIPI or not,” Shin Yong-sub, the director of KCC’s policy bureau, told the Korea Times. “Consumers will also be able to choose from a wider variety of products and benefit from increased price competition from handset makers.”

Top among those products, the iPhone, which carriers K Telecom and KTF are both said to be interested in adding to their lineups.

On April 1, 2009, that will all change. The Korea Communications Commission today agreed to lift the WIPI requirement, opening the South Korean market to the iPhone, BlackBerry and other devices to which it had been effectively closed. “Mobile-phone operators have been required to use the WIPI mobile platform on their handsets, but considering global industry trends toward the use of general-purpose mobile operating systems, we concluded that there was a need to allow carriers the freedom to decide whether to use WIPI or not,” Shin Yong-sub, the director of KCC’s policy bureau, told the Korea Times. “Consumers will also be able to choose from a wider variety of products and benefit from increased price competition from handset makers.”

Top among those products, the iPhone, which carriers K Telecom and KTF are both said to be interested in adding to their lineups.

On April 1, 2009, that will all change. The Korea Communications Commission today agreed to lift the WIPI requirement, opening the South Korean market to the iPhone, BlackBerry and other devices to which it had been effectively closed. “Mobile-phone operators have been required to use the WIPI mobile platform on their handsets, but considering global industry trends toward the use of general-purpose mobile operating systems, we concluded that there was a need to allow carriers the freedom to decide whether to use WIPI or not,” Shin Yong-sub, the director of KCC’s policy bureau, told the Korea Times. “Consumers will also be able to choose from a wider variety of products and benefit from increased price competition from handset makers.”

Top among those products, the iPhone, which carriers K Telecom and KTF are both said to be interested in adding to their lineups.

That’s some heavy rhetoric. Certainly, it’s representative of the distaste with which Microsoft (MSFT) has viewed Linux and Linux vendors like Novell (NOVL) for the past decade.

So to hear back in Nov. 2006 that Microsoft was partnering with Novell to offer sales support for Novell’s SUSE Linux and cooperate with its old rival on Linux-Windows interoperability was astonishing–a bit like discovering that Stalin really sent Trotsky to Mexico for a nice vacation or that Itchy has shacked up with Scratchy.

And the unlikely partnership continues to astonish to this day. On Wednesday, the two companies expanded their interoperability agreement, with Microsoft agreeing to buy and resell up to $100 million in enterprise support subscriptions for Novell’s SUSE Linux Enterprise Server OS. That’s in addition to the $240 million Microsoft has already agreed to buy.

Odd, isn’t it, to see Microsoft marketing Linux like this? Odder still, to see Novell in an alliance with the company that hoped to “slaughter” it. So why did Novell agree to it? “Novell’s benefit is obvious, if not self-destructive,” Joe Wilcox explains over at Microsoft Watch. “The deal allows Novell to exist in the shadow of Windows Server, sustaining on its table scraps. Microsoft can offer customers that simply must have some Linux servers a sanctioned source for good tools ensuring interoperability with Windows Server.”

That’s some heavy rhetoric. Certainly, it’s representative of the distaste with which Microsoft (MSFT) has viewed Linux and Linux vendors like Novell (NOVL) for the past decade.

So to hear back in Nov. 2006 that Microsoft was partnering with Novell to offer sales support for Novell’s SUSE Linux and cooperate with its old rival on Linux-Windows interoperability was astonishing–a bit like discovering that Stalin really sent Trotsky to Mexico for a nice vacation or that Itchy has shacked up with Scratchy.

And the unlikely partnership continues to astonish to this day. On Wednesday, the two companies expanded their interoperability agreement, with Microsoft agreeing to buy and resell up to $100 million in enterprise support subscriptions for Novell’s SUSE Linux Enterprise Server OS. That’s in addition to the $240 million Microsoft has already agreed to buy.

Odd, isn’t it, to see Microsoft marketing Linux like this? Odder still, to see Novell in an alliance with the company that hoped to “slaughter” it. So why did Novell agree to it? “Novell’s benefit is obvious, if not self-destructive,” Joe Wilcox explains over at Microsoft Watch. “The deal allows Novell to exist in the shadow of Windows Server, sustaining on its table scraps. Microsoft can offer customers that simply must have some Linux servers a sanctioned source for good tools ensuring interoperability with Windows Server.”

In a status report filed with Federal antitrust regulators yesterday, Microsoft (MSFT) said it had done much to comply with its 2002 antitrust consent decree and generally applauded its efforts toward interoperability and fair competition.

In the states, perhaps. But apparently not in Asia. Because not 24 hours later, China’s State Intellectual Property Office said it’s investigating the software giant for discriminatory pricing. And according to the Shanghai Securities News, it may sue Microsoft under a new antitrust law scheduled to go into effect Aug. 1.

“On the one hand, global software firms, taking advantage of their monopoly position, set unreasonably high prices for genuine software, while on the other hand, they criticize Chinese for poor copyright awareness,” an unnamed source told the publication. “This is abnormal. With the anti-monopoly law in place, [the] Chinese government and companies have the obligation and right to correct the situation.”

Of course, it’s also “abnormal” for Windows Vista to be priced at $2.50 a copy, yet copies of the OS are widely available in China at that price. Syndicates that distribute more than $2 billion worth of counterfeit Microsoft software aren’t exactly normal either, but you’ll find those in China as well. The FBI did. Which is not to say that China is wrong to complain of Microsoft’s unreasonably high prices–just laughably vindictive in the way it’s gone about it.

Late yesterday, the company announced plans to add support for the open source Open Document Format–a rival of Microsoft Word–to Office 2007. Beginning with Service Pack 2 for Office 2007, due in the first half of next year the market-leading productivity suite will offer ODF as a default file format and Adobe’s (ADBE) PDF (Portable Document Format) and Microsoft’s own XML Paper Specification as well. “We have heard from customers and governments that they would like to see us do this,” said Tom Robertson, general manager of Interoperability and Standards at Microsoft. “Now is the time to announce this support.”

“Now,” of course being short for “now that the European Commission is investigating us again over claims of monopoly abuse;” “support” short for “poor support.” At least that seems to be the position of the European Committee for Interoperable Systems, which is openly skeptical of Microsoft’s sudden commitment to genuine interoperability. “It is particularly striking that all of Microsoft’s latest policy statements on interoperability are still in the future tense, as though these were difficult technical objectives,” said ECIS spokesman Thomas Vinje. “They are not. A closer look at their substance suggests that Microsoft is still playing for time to further consolidate its super-dominant position, and that continued antitrust vigilance will be necessary.”

And continued antitrust vigilance is what Microsoft’s going to get. This morning the EC said it had “taken note” of the company’s announcement and plans to study it. Said the EC, “In its ongoing antitrust investigation concerning interoperability with Microsoft Office, the commission will investigate whether the announced support of ODF in Office leads to better interoperability and allows consumers to process and exchange their documents with the software product of their choice.”

This morning the company threw its support behind OpenSocial–a Google-led initiative to foster interoperability between social applications–and with MySpace (NWS) and Google, it announced the OpenSocial Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to the mitigation of perceptions that Google will use OpenSocial for its own benefit.

“… Today … we’ve joined forces with Google and MySpace to create the OpenSocial Foundation, and will also begin supporting the OpenSocial standard,” Yahoo VP of Platforms Wade Chambers said in a post to Yahoo Anecdotal. “Industry consortiums such as this often start slowly and evolve over time. So far, OpenSocial is rapidly growing and adapting, but still in the early stages. We feel that this is the right step at this stage in its evolution. It’s no longer a trial balloon–it’s for real. We are taking this opportunity to help ensure Web sites and developers feel confident using OpenSocial as the building blocks for their new social apps.”

These sound pretty slick. Still, as Joe Wilcox notes over at Microsoft Watch, it’s a little odd that Microsoft would introduce proprietary browser specifications like these after its recent commitments to interoperability.

In a complete reversal of earlier policy, the software giant has decided to make IE8 default to a standards-compliant mode of rendering Web pages that favors interoperability, rather than an IE7 rendering mode that favors Microsoft (MSFT). “Microsoft recently published a set of Interoperability Principles,” Internet Explorer General Manager Dean Hachamovitch wrote in a post to the IEBlog. “Thinking about IE8’s behavior with these principles in mind, interpreting Web content in the most standards-compliant way possible is a better thing to do. We think that acting in accordance with principles is important, and IE8’s default is a demonstration of the interoperability principles in action.”

Quite the change of heart. Guess a record $1.35 billion in antitrust fines changes your perspective on these things. Certainly, Hachamovitch implies as much in his post. Writes Hachamovitch, “While we do not believe any current legal requirements would dictate which rendering mode a browser must use, this step clearly removes this question as a potential legal and regulatory issue.”

It certainly does. And if you don’t believe Hachamovitch, just ask Brad Smith, Microsoft senior vice president and general counsel. He said exactly the same thing, using exactly the same words in a company press release announcing IE8′s Web standards compliance.

In a complete reversal of earlier policy, the software giant has decided to make IE8 default to a standards-compliant mode of rendering Web pages that favors interoperability, rather than an IE7 rendering mode that favors Microsoft (MSFT). “Microsoft recently published a set of Interoperability Principles,” Internet Explorer General Manager Dean Hachamovitch wrote in a post to the IEBlog. “Thinking about IE8’s behavior with these principles in mind, interpreting Web content in the most standards-compliant way possible is a better thing to do. We think that acting in accordance with principles is important, and IE8’s default is a demonstration of the interoperability principles in action.”

Quite the change of heart. Guess a record $1.35 billion in antitrust fines changes your perspective on these things. Certainly, Hachamovitch implies as much in his post. Writes Hachamovitch, “While we do not believe any current legal requirements would dictate which rendering mode a browser must use, this step clearly removes this question as a potential legal and regulatory issue.”

It certainly does. And if you don’t believe Hachamovitch, just ask Brad Smith, Microsoft senior vice president and general counsel. He said exactly the same thing, using exactly the same words in a company press release announcing IE8′s Web standards compliance.

This morning the EC slapped the software giant with another $1.35 billion in fines for failing to comply with its 2004 antitrust order. “Microsoft was the first company in 50 years of EU competition policy that the commission has had to fine for failure to comply with an antitrust decision,” European Commissioner for Competition Neelie Kroes said. “I hope that today’s decision closes a dark chapter in Microsoft’s record of noncompliance with the commission’s March 2004 decision and that the principles confirmed by the Court of First Instance ruling of September 2007 will govern Microsoft’s future conduct.”

The fine is the largest the EU has ever imposed against a single company in an antitrust case and brings Microsoft’s total European antitrust tab to about $2.5 billion, in current exchange rates. Quite a sum, to be sure. But for Microsoft, one that could easily come out of the “Found Beneath Bill Gates’s Couch Cushions” fund. Said Jeremy Allison, co-creator of the open-source workgroup file-and-print-server software Samba, “That’s not a fine, that’s just a way of getting their attention.”

In a statement, Microsoft said it was “reviewing the commission’s actions,” adding that the fine concerned past issues it thought had been resolved. “As we demonstrated last week with our new interoperability principles and specific actions to increase the openness of our products, we are focusing on steps that will improve things for the future,” the company said.

But Kroes wasn’t having any of it. “Talk, as you know, is cheap,” she said this morning. “We don’t want talk and promises.”

“The European Commission takes note of today’s announcement by Microsoft of its intention to commit to a number of principles in order to promote interoperability with some of its high-market-share software products,” the EC said in a statement. “This announcement does not relate to the question of whether or not Microsoft has been complying with EU antitrust rules in this area in the past. The commission would welcome any move toward genuine interoperability. Nonetheless, the commission notes that today’s announcement follows at least four similar statements by Microsoft in the past on the importance of interoperability.”

The European Committee for Interoperable Systems, a coalition of Microsoft rivals, was equally dubious of the announcement. Noting that Microsoft announced its last interoperability initiative in August of 2007, when it had not yet complied with the EC’s 2004 ruling requiring the disclosure of interoperability information, the ECIS said the world needs a permanent change in Microsoft’s behavior, not just another announcement. “We have heard high-profile commitments from Microsoft a half-dozen times over the past two years, but have yet to see any lasting change in Microsoft’s behavior in the marketplace,” ECIS Legal Counsel and Spokesman Thomas Vinje said in a statement.

Vinje went on to suggest that if Microsoft is truly serious about enhancing its support of industry standards, it will endorse the Open Document Format at the International Standards Organization meeting next week and stop pushing forward with its proprietary Windows-dependent standard document format.

“The European Commission takes note of today’s announcement by Microsoft of its intention to commit to a number of principles in order to promote interoperability with some of its high-market-share software products,” the EC said in a statement. “This announcement does not relate to the question of whether or not Microsoft has been complying with EU antitrust rules in this area in the past. The commission would welcome any move toward genuine interoperability. Nonetheless, the commission notes that today’s announcement follows at least four similar statements by Microsoft in the past on the importance of interoperability.”

The European Committee for Interoperable Systems, a coalition of Microsoft rivals, was equally dubious of the announcement. Noting that Microsoft announced its last interoperability initiative in August of 2007, when it had not yet complied with the EC’s 2004 ruling requiring the disclosure of interoperability information, the ECIS said the world needs a permanent change in Microsoft’s behavior, not just another announcement. “We have heard high-profile commitments from Microsoft a half-dozen times over the past two years, but have yet to see any lasting change in Microsoft’s behavior in the marketplace,” ECIS Legal Counsel and Spokesman Thomas Vinje said in a statement.

Vinje went on to suggest that if Microsoft is truly serious about enhancing its support of industry standards, it will endorse the Open Document Format at the International Standards Organization meeting next week and stop pushing forward with its proprietary Windows-dependent standard document format.