Seth Jayson of the Motley Fool (membership required) is exasperated with the EU and Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes. Last week he wrote (in Surprise! EU Hates Microsoft):

Microsoft's antitrust woes with the EU are old news by now, as is the EU's pigheaded, danged-if-you-do, danged-if-you-don't stance on non-issues such as uncoupling Windows Media Player from the OS. (Turned out no one wanted that stripped-down version of the OS over there, but why let facts get in the way of protectionist zeal?)

If today's news is any indication, things aren't likely to get much easier for Microsoft when Vista finally hits the market. According to an AP story, the EU told Microsoft it is ready to offer "guidance" on how Windows' latest OS should incorporate -- or not incorporate -- new security features that might threaten the hegemony of Windows-security companies like Symantec . . . . or McAfee . . . .

As for how it does that, it remains Redmond's responsibility "to accept and implement its responsibilities as a near monopolist to ensure full compliance." . . .

The Catch-22 for Microsoft is that security is a huge deal to consumers. And, truth be told, the beta versions of its latest security tools for Vista -- such as Windows Defender -- are much better integrated than the patchwork of third-party stuff that used to muck up my machine. But by creating more robust tools to better serve consumers' demand for security, Microsoft may run afoul of European regulators.

And yesterday he added (in V for Vendetta):

Commissioner Neelie Kroes . . . seems a wee bit upset at the response to her latest shot across Microsoft's . . . bow, which said, as I read it, "Don't you dare make Windows too secure! All those other people need jobs, too!"

In a letter to the Financial Times, Kroes . . . says the EC has no vendetta against Microsoft, that it's been plenty helpful, and that it only seeks to "ensure that rival security software vendors, who have traditionally been the innovators in this area, are able to compete on a level playing field."

But there's the rub. What on earth is a level playing field to the EC?

As the European Commission's (EC) long-running antitrust feud with Microsoft has shown, the EC is more than happy to wield the stick even before an infraction occurs, a la Minority Report. . . .

Given this history, what's Microsoft's play when it comes to securing Vista across the pond? How much code does the company need to share? Do frequent security upgrades unfairly compete with McAfee . . . , Symantec , , , and others who traditionally provided these services? Would it be unfair of Microsoft to be too quick in its security releases? Too effective? Dare we wonder how many security holes consumers need to endure so that the EC can feel better about keeping the security revenues for outside vendors?

As I see it, the EC's attitude in this matter is still too much like taking the lash to Toyota . . . for developing a better engine or GM . . . for upping its power-train warranty. (Won't someone please think of those poor auto mechanics!)

Unfortunately for Microsoft shareholders, the costs of buying off the EC are very real, and they amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. It can't be easy to cope with Kroes and company, but ultimately, it needs to be done. The price of punishment -- fair or ludicrous -- is just too high.