So the funniest joke that I've heard in weeks and weeks came unwittingly from the mouth of European Union commissioner Cecilio Madero, who reportedly just sent a letter to Microsoft CEO expressing concern over the potential monopolistic potential of Windows Vista.

This is the same Windows Vista, I presume, that has been delayed almost as long as the new Bay Bridge between Oakland and San Francisco, the same operating system that now looks likely to be widely available as soon as the Red Sox, er White Sox, er Cubs win the World Series?

In a very serious note, there are reportedly internal rumblings within Microsoft to throw Ballmer, the second most powerful person in the technology industry, out the door--and yet the EU is worried about the potential of Windows Vista to monopolize the PC industry?

Microsoft and Ballmer have been in a staring contest with the EU its executive body, the EC, for a long time. Last year, the EU threw its hands in the air, metaphorically, and said that Redmond will face hundreds of millions of euro in fines if it does not comply with European Commission demands to change the ways it does business (ie, not hold hardware companies hostage to Windows), and change the way it views its operating system (ie, stop claiming that Internet Explorer and any future enhancements are integral OS components).

The Commission then said in December that it will start fining the company 2 milion euro per day unless it reaches an agreement, and is now engaged in a behind-the-doors debate about whether it will institute these fines. It is interesting to a U.S. observer to witness the rigid, rather secretive deliberative process of the EC and its accusations that Microsoft is merely playing to the media in its statements that it is doing nothing wrong.

Contrast this to the U.S., where court proceedings are publicly available, sometimes even broadcast, and all major legal and judicial activities are tried in the media (and by extension in the public eye).

Microsoft, having vanquished a serious U.S. Justice Department action that started in the Clinton administration, proved to be the tipping point for the Nasdaq meltdown, died when the presiding judge bragged about his badness to the press, and was not resuscitated by the present Bush administration, is finding that opaque, Euro-style justice may be more difficult to negotiate. This is particularly true in that Microsoft is not a European-based company, and it also faces a more politically organized and strident open-source-related opposition in Europe than in the U.S.

So it is a serious matter. Whether Microsoft should change its ways or not is not an issue for this reporter to debate. Whether it should work harder to appease the Eurocrats is not something that can be determined in the absence of a close examination of all the documents relating to this case.

Microsoft clearly, and admittedy, needs to address security and functionality issues related to the former Longhorn. The legions of developers who have made their livings from Redmond for years and, in many cases, decades, should be clearly concerned about the latest delay. And the EU and EC certainly have the right to contest the business practices of a dominant, and often unpopular vendor if there is cause for concern over these business practices.

But whether the EC should have an excessive worry about Windows Vista is probably the funniest thing Mr. Ballmer has heard recently, if in fact he finds anything funny about the current state of Windows Vista. Because Microsoft seems to be creating a vacuum that is quickly being filled by open-source alternatives as well as the potential many analysts see in Google and Yahoo. Perhaps some day the EC will have to debate whether to offer state subsidies to Microsoft to enable the company's  European employees to keep their lifetime jobs and six-week vacations.