__/ [ 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.
|
| 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.
|
| 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.
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.
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 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.
|
|
