While she acknowledged that the technical documentation project was complex, Kollar-Kotelly made no bones about the fact that Microsoft is culpable for "this inexcusable delay. ... Practically speaking, Microsoft has never complied with ??? III.E," she said. And while Microsoft eventually proposed a plan that now appears to be producing the type of quality technical documentation required by ??? III.E, it did so in the face of mounting pressure from all the plaintiffs and the court, the judge said."As a result of the delay, the provisions of the Final Judgments have not yet had the chance to operate together as the comprehensive remedy the Court and the parties envisioned when the Final Judgments were entered," Kollar-Kotelly said. But, in spite of all that, the extension should not be viewed as a sanction against Microsoft, but rather as "a means to allow the respective provisions of the Final Judgments the opportunity to operate together towards maximizing Section III.E's procompetitive potential," she said in the judgment. In response, Microsoft issued a statement from Brad Smith, its senior vice president and general counsel, saying that it will continue to comply fully with the consent decree. Smith tried to put a positive spin on the judgment, saying the Microsoft is "gratified that the court recognized our extensive efforts to work cooperatively with the large number of government agencies involved. We built Windows Vista in compliance with these rules, and we will continue to adhere to the decree's requirements," he said. Kollar-Kotelly did not rule out the possibility of extending the final judgments even further, saying that her decision not to extend the final judgments beyond
2009, does not preclude the possibility of doing so in the future.
There was no reason why the type of documentation being created now could not have been created from the start if the necessary resources had been devoted to the project, she said.