Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> ,----[ Quote ]
> As Novell's CEO recently said:
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Microsoft Corp is using scare tactics to exert pressure on PC vendors
> | not to explore the potential of desktop Linux, according to Novell
> | Inc president and COO, Ron Hovsepian
> `----
My guess is that he has been talking from more than just an "opinion".
I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't have some audio recordings,
e-mails, and possibly even written correspondence and chat transcripts
to back up a statement like this.
It's no secret that Novell has been very aggressively courting the
OEMs, offering them terms and conditions, along with profitability,
that were almost too good to be true. It's no secret that many of
these OEMs even accepted these offers initially. It's also no secret
that almost immediately, even before the market could be tested, the
OEMs recoiled from the practice as if they had been poked by a Cattle
Prod a few hundred times.
I can't help but wonder if these OEMs are also recording their
interactions with Microsoft, how they are defying court orders and
settlements by covertly retailiating or threatening OEMs with
consequences so terrible that even when faced with the potential for
enormous profit, the possibility of some spectre, possibly as extreme
as the revocation of ALL Microsoft licenses to ALL PC lines. I really
can't imagine anything less that that which would drive these OEMs to
not even consider "test marketing" at least one line of computers in
the retail market.
When Sam Palmisano ordered the PC division to stop preinstalling OS/2
on PCs in 1995, he specifically stated that the retailers had told him
that they would not sell the OS/2 machines.
I wonder what kind of pressure was applied to the retailers? Could it
be because Microsoft was applying pressure to the retailers, possibly
revoking there status as authorized Microsoft dealers, possibly even
threatening to have rival OEMs terminate agreements with retailers who
offered the OS/2 machines?
Microsoft insisted that a Microsoft lawyer be present for all
questioning, interrogations, and depositions, even in the DOJ vs
Microsoft antitrust case. It was only after Judge Jackson ruled that
this was obstruction of justice, that Microsoft softened it's position,
allowing OEMs, Retailers, Corporate customers, and other Microsoft
Licensees to make statements to federal investigators without the
presence of a Microsoft lawyer. The DOJ was flooded with leads, and
people saying "talk to me". Many even offered sworn depositions, and
during the public input, many licensees provided information indicating
that the settlement was sufficient to protect them.
After the trial, the records were sealed, and Microsoft retaliated
against many of those who had provided information, as well as the
companies who testified.
> http://www.commentwire.com/article_news.asp?guid=2044AB5A-59CA-4EC3-AD3F-73DF7BC4F8E0
> (link now broken)
Why does it not surprise me that this type of comment would
"disappear".
The biggest problem with the Web, is that someone can say something, do
something, or write something really significant, and it can be
"disappeared" as if it had never been spoken, done, or written.
.
The Web based press is starting to look more and more like Pravda, the
USSR newspaper that
|
|
