Examples of using Interoperability information in English and their translations into Slovak
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Medicine
-
Financial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Official/political
-
Computer
-
Programming
Interoperability information.
(1) Refusal to supply interoperability information.
Microsoft concludes that the information which it hasrefused to communicate cannot be regarded as interoperability information.
A- The interoperability information issue.
In the first place,Microsoft claims that Sun did not request access to interoperability information within the meaning of the contested decision.
People also translate
In 2006, the Commission had already imposed on Microsoft a definitive penalty payment of EUR 280.5 million for not providing complete andaccurate interoperability information(70).
In this decision the Commission condemned Microsoft's refusal to supply interoperability information and the tying of Windows and Windows Media Player.
Under the Digital Agenda for Europe, we will examine the feasibility of introducing measures tomake big market players license interoperability information.
Thus, the interoperability information at issue will be used by Microsoft's competitors not to develop exactly the same products as Microsoft's, but to develop improved products, with‘added value'.
Report on the feasibility of measures that couldlead significant market players to license interoperability information.
Second, from the moment at which it is established that- as in this case- the interoperability information is indispensable, that information is necessarily of great value to the competitors who wish to have access to it.
On 21 December, the Commission issued a statement of objections in the procedure pursuant to Article 24 with regard to Microsoft's obligation to supply complete andaccurate interoperability information.
That assertion iswholly irrelevant to the question whether that request concerned interoperability information as referred to in the contested decision.
In normal competitive circumstances, software developers have every incentive to favour interoperability between their products and their competitors' products andto disclose interoperability information.
Last, Microsoft states that competing vendors of serveroperating systems are not dependent on the interoperability information whose supply Microsoft is alleged to have interrupted.
Second, the Commission refers to recitals 194 to 198 to the contested decision and claims that Microsoft explicitly confirmed to theCommission that it refused to give access to certain interoperability information.
As Microsoft did not provide the required complete andaccurate interoperability information, the Commission adopted a decision imposing on Microsoft a penalty payment of EUR 280.5 million for non-compliance with its obligations.
In 2008, the Commission imposed a second penalty payment- of EUR 899 million- on the company Microso for noncompliance with aCommission decision requiring it to share essential interoperability information with its rivals on reasonable terms.
Microsoft is first of all required to draw up the interoperability information within the meaning of Article 1(1) of the contested decision and to implement the evaluation mechanism referred to in Article 5(c) of that decision.
Second, the Commission rejects Microsoft's argument, also put forward during the administrative procedure, that Sun's request concerned‘the internal make-up of Windows server operating systems' andtherefore went beyond interoperability information.
Next, the Commission recalls that it stated in its preliminary observations that nocopyright owned by Microsoft would prevent the interoperability information from being used for the purpose of achieving interoperability(paragraphs 167 and 168 above).
Microsoft's initial policy was to disclose interoperability information, not to retain it, which, among other things, helped Microsoft to introduce its own work group server operating systems on the market and did not discourage it from innovating.
Consequently, on 1 March, the Commission issued a statement of objections addressed to Microso which set out the Commission's preliminaryassessment that Microso had not complied with its obligation too er the complete and accurate interoperability information on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms(71).
More generally, the Commission observes that it cannotbe excluded that ordering Microsoft to disclose the interoperability information to third parties and to allow them to use it will interfere with the free exercise of its intellectual property rights.
Consequently, on 1 March the Commission issued a statement of objections addressed to Microsoft which set out the Commission'spreliminary assessment that Microsoft had not complied with its obligation to offer the complete and accurate interoperability information on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms71.
It merely contends that the fact that Sun is not the onlycompetitor to which Microsoft has refused access to the interoperability information is a circumstance relevant to the assessment of the compatibility of Microsoft's conduct with Article 82 EC.
Next, Microsoft cannot rely on the fact that consumers never claimed at any time during the administrative procedure that they had been forced to adopt a Windows work group serveroperating system as a consequence of its refusal to disclose interoperability information to its competitors.
As the recitals to Directive 91/250 specifically indicate that withholding interoperability information may constitute an abuse of a dominant position, Microsoft cannot seriously maintain that it was not aware that it was infringing Article 82 EC.
The Commission refers to recitals 713 to 722 to the contested decision andfurther submits that access to interoperability information will not allow Microsoft's competitors to‘clone' or‘mimic' the functionalities of Windows work group server operating systems.
As the Court has already held whenexamining the second part of the refusal to supply interoperability information, the Commission was correct to consider that the letter of 6 October 1998 contained a refusal to communicate to Sun the information which it had requested.