Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ Mark Kent ] on Thursday 13 July 2006 11:41 \__
>
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> German anti-trust officials received complaint against Intel
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>| The Financial Times claimed the FCO has in its possession a letter from
>>>| a Saturn employee that implied Intel gave the retailer financial
>>>| incentives not to stock AMD-based PCs.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/07/12/intel_german_fco_complaint/
>>>
>>> This reminds me of tfosorciM and s'MEO.
>>
>> Just a little bit, yes.
>
>
> Rex seems to know a lot about it, so for the (UseNet) record, I have
> collected some relevant bits from 3 recent messages:
>
> ,----
> | Microsoft has the additional advantage of maintaining a monopoly
> | control of the desktop market. Regardless of what happens after the
> | machine is sold, OEMs know that given the choice of purchasing more
> | than enough licenses regardless of whether they were actually needed by
> | end-users or not, and having too few licenses, with the inability to
> | purchase more, and at prices which price the end-product so much higher
> | that competitor products that demand would falter, the OEMs negotiate a
> | better deal by purchasing far more than they actually need. For
> | example, if an OEM expects to sell 10 million PCs, and Microsoft is
> | willing to sell him 10 million at $80 per copy, or 15 million at
> | $40/copy, purchasing the 15 million copies give a net price of roughly
> | $60/copy, which is still superior to the smaller order.
> |
Except, in those sorts of quantities M$ could well afford to sell for a hell
of a lot less than that, sell a lot more licenses, claim a much higher
marketshare (even though a lot of those licenses would never actually see
use), and make the OEM a lot more receptive to parting with more green for
the next release.
> | Of course, this quantity discount also gives Microsoft the ability to
> | impose some unusual restrictions. For example, Windows must be
> | installed on every machine sold. Windows must be the ONLY operating
> | system installed on these machines. The OEM is not allowed to make ANY
> | alterations to the configuration, including partitions which would
> | allow users to install Linux in a separate partition, 3rd party
> | software that competes with Microsoft products including Lotus Smart
> | Suite, Netscape Communicator, or Open Office/Star Office. The OEM can
> | include this software "on the side", and even Linux, but cannot
> | preinstall the software.
> |
As I have been told by a Microsoft rep, in front of a BSA guy.
> | Failure to comply with any of these terms could result in automatic
> | revokation of licenses, which meant that the OEM was back into the
> | state of "All Or Nothing", with the option of renegotiating for
> | licenses (which may involve additional cash payments and nearly always
> | involved additianal restrictions).
> `----
>
> ---
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/10/25/inside_the_ms_trial_part_2/
>
> Senator Orrin Hatch's judiciary committee became interested in the
> case, and staffer Mike Hirshland soon discovered that Klein didn't like
> Reback. But Dan Rubinfeld, the new DoJ chief economist, agreed with the
> Reback-Creighton analysis and persuaded Klein to issue a broader CID
> (document demand) to Microsoft, which yielded email containing
> Allchin's gloom about how IE could succeed unless leveraged with
> Windows, and the evidence that Compaq' Windows licence would be revoked
> by Microsoft if Compaq used Netscape instead of IE.
>
Which company was it flipped off Microsoft after a similar threat and told
'em where to stick their OEM deal?
> Microsoft would not allow IBM to preinstall Lotus Smart-Suite in their
> machines. There was a "quick install" and the installation media was
> included with the packaging, but the application had to be installed by
> the consumer after market.
>
> IBM was not allowed to install OS/2 with or in conjunction with Windows
> 95 or any subsequent version of Windows.
>
>
> ---
>
> http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f216100/216127.htm
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft#Criticisms_of_the_case
>
> http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3423941
>
> If you can get me a published copy of actual OEM license agreements
> with OEMs such as HP, Dell, Gateway, and Toshiba, you can correct the
> record.
>
Microsoft probably don't want you to see those.
> I have to settle for those references which have been made public, even
> if they are slightly out of date.
>
> Point of fact, Microsoft has, on at least one occaision, threatened to
> revoke the license of an OEM for an unexpected re-interpretation of a
> clause.
>
> And by the way, Compaq didn't actually remove IE, they just removed the
> IE Icon from the desktop and modified the registry to make sure that it
> could stay removed.
>
> Microsoft has also been challenged over several other OEM licensing
> issues which were claimed to have been designed to prevent the
> distribution of Linux (Violating both the settlement and the Appeals
> Court Ruling), but Microsoft has artfully dodged the issue by claiming
> that their actual intent was only to show that other versions of
> Windows were the target. And yet, no OEM currently publishes the Linux
> compatibility of their machines in the same ad content that mentions
> Microsoft Windows.
>
I see a pattern emerging. Maybe a selling point of Linux would be, for
boxbuilders like myself, to use Linux-friendly hardware, get such
configurations certified by eg Novell, and stick a sticker of one's own
design which basically says "Linux Ready" on each box.
I'm doing all of the above right now. Got my hardware cert, got my stickers
printed off on a giant roll that'll last me until I retire, and a ready
supply of very decent, basically future-resistant hardware. By which I
mean, will last past the oft-quoted three-year lifespan of such hardware
under Windows (OK, Apple discontinue hardware support completely after two
years, after which you pay through the *nose* to get something as simple as
a DVDROM drive with a Lombard facing on it. Apple centre here wanted
to /see/ the laptop and charge me Â53 for the privilege *before* they'd
even entertain the notion of supplying me with a new drive!)
> I point to a clear cut pattern, and point to actual language in actual
> court cases to suggest that there may be a pattern of protecting the
> monopoly through methods not currently addressed by the current court
> settlement. The court said "you can't interfere with the distribution
> of Linux on PCs". Microsoft has managed to dance under and around this
> ruling.
>
> This is a common legal tactic. Draft the settlement, then let the
> other party assume that the settlement addresses the spirit and intent
> of the ruling - to get the settlement language accepted. Then use the
> letter of the settlement to circumvent the spirit and intent of the
> law.
>
> Microsoft's settlement and license language should be mandatory reading
> for anyone considering working for companies like Enron, WorldCom, or
> any Mifia Don.
Or run for US Government.
--
When all else fails...
Use a hammer.
http://www.dotware.co.uk
Some people are like Slinkies;
They serve no particular purpose,
But they bring a smile to your face
When you push them down the stairs.
|
|
