Comment Re:8 days isn't a lot of time to document... (Score 1) 537
If the US was not run by corrupt scumbags MS...
Wow. Let's assume for a second that I'm not going to respond to your anti-US sentiments, nor your claims that I'm being paid by MS to spread FUD -- or even that it is FUD.
I have no problem with the EU Commission fining MS for failing to comply; that is their legal responsibility. Without looking at the documentation, which I'm sure you haven't either, I can't say one way or the other whether the documentation is sufficient or insufficient. Neither can you. MS has published a set of documentation, which their representatives say is complete -- with the caveat that it would take a great deal of experience to implement based off of it -- while the EU Commission's representatives say is insufficient. They're probably both right. It doesn't matter.
Microsoft is in the business of making money. It's hurting their stock price to have this still hanging over their heads. It's hurting their productivity to have spend money to pay people to document all these protocols. Whether it's five people over 10 months or one person over fifty months probably means very little -- aside from the fact that Microsoft, trying to make money, would rather have this over and done with.
I'll reiterate my original point: an 8 day deadline is absurd. I can't imagine anyway that MS could complete the task in that time. If the Commissioner just wants to fine them, okay. However, providing an unreachable goal helps no one. Whether or not MS inflated the time they thought it would take to get the documentation up to snuff is almost insignificant. I sincerely doubt MS has the documentation being requested already written -- the 3 million euro daily fine would be a great reason to get it out there if they did.
If the Commission honestly wanted the documentation done in a faster manner, the proper response would be to disagree on the date of completion, and ask MS to complete it faster. I, unfortunately, could not find when MS announced it would be done next July, but even if it was six months ago, telling Microsoft NOW that they want the information in 8 days is simply absurd. Based on the complaints of Neil Barrett, the most recent version of the documentation is still massively insufficient. If MS had scheduled the work to be done by next July, for whatever reason -- real need or delaying tactic -- shifting the schedule may have been a possibility; say by January, or even maybe December. Some deadline that was actually attainable is a very different creature than an arbitrary 8 day deadline that is certainly unreachable.
SO: an 8 day deadline that is impossible to reach is absurd. Microsoft is too smart of a company, no matter how evil and monopolistic, to want to carry this out any longer than necessary; it's too expensive, and Microsoft is in the business of making money. The EU Commission is not evincing a desire here for the documentation to be completed; their demanding their money.
Wow. Let's assume for a second that I'm not going to respond to your anti-US sentiments, nor your claims that I'm being paid by MS to spread FUD -- or even that it is FUD.
I have no problem with the EU Commission fining MS for failing to comply; that is their legal responsibility. Without looking at the documentation, which I'm sure you haven't either, I can't say one way or the other whether the documentation is sufficient or insufficient. Neither can you. MS has published a set of documentation, which their representatives say is complete -- with the caveat that it would take a great deal of experience to implement based off of it -- while the EU Commission's representatives say is insufficient. They're probably both right. It doesn't matter.
Microsoft is in the business of making money. It's hurting their stock price to have this still hanging over their heads. It's hurting their productivity to have spend money to pay people to document all these protocols. Whether it's five people over 10 months or one person over fifty months probably means very little -- aside from the fact that Microsoft, trying to make money, would rather have this over and done with.
I'll reiterate my original point: an 8 day deadline is absurd. I can't imagine anyway that MS could complete the task in that time. If the Commissioner just wants to fine them, okay. However, providing an unreachable goal helps no one. Whether or not MS inflated the time they thought it would take to get the documentation up to snuff is almost insignificant. I sincerely doubt MS has the documentation being requested already written -- the 3 million euro daily fine would be a great reason to get it out there if they did.
If the Commission honestly wanted the documentation done in a faster manner, the proper response would be to disagree on the date of completion, and ask MS to complete it faster. I, unfortunately, could not find when MS announced it would be done next July, but even if it was six months ago, telling Microsoft NOW that they want the information in 8 days is simply absurd. Based on the complaints of Neil Barrett, the most recent version of the documentation is still massively insufficient. If MS had scheduled the work to be done by next July, for whatever reason -- real need or delaying tactic -- shifting the schedule may have been a possibility; say by January, or even maybe December. Some deadline that was actually attainable is a very different creature than an arbitrary 8 day deadline that is certainly unreachable.
SO: an 8 day deadline that is impossible to reach is absurd. Microsoft is too smart of a company, no matter how evil and monopolistic, to want to carry this out any longer than necessary; it's too expensive, and Microsoft is in the business of making money. The EU Commission is not evincing a desire here for the documentation to be completed; their demanding their money.
