Re: Consumers forced to buy new Windows licenses

["Norm" <normanmo@clark.net>]

On Sun, 3 May 1998 21:29:56 -0400 (EDT), James Love wrote:

>I received several notes regarding the question of why consumers can't buy
>computers from major OEMs without purchasing a Windows license, even when
>consumers are buying a replacement machine, and they already have a Windows
>license, or if they want to install a different operating system, like Linux or
>FreeBSD.  One person suggested I look at Microsoft CFO Greg Maffei's 1997
>comments at a "summit" of stock analysts.  One can read into the comments
>Microsoft's incentives to "force" or "induce" OEMs to sign contracts that
>require the OEMs to ship a new OS license with every new computer.  Whether or
>not such contracts are technical violations of the 1995 consent order is one
>question.  Another question is whether or not the 1995 consent order has
>effectively changed anything, given Microsoft's considerable power in
>negotiating contract terms.


     You're absolutely right James, the 1995 consent decree has no
teeth.  This is one reason why I'm sorry to say I have little faith in
the DOJ's current case.  The sad truth is that 1995 decree did exactly
what the DOJ set out to do, absolutely nothing.  Lets face it, anytime
the DOJ joins with the target of their investigation to appeal a
Judge's ruling (Judge Sporkin) in their favor your 'stink meter' should
be going off the scale.  The DOJ just wanted to go through the motions
without really doing anything to M$, and when the proceeding Judge
balked they sided with M$ against the Judge.  IMO the DOJ got exactly
what they wanted out of the 1995 decree, they were able to claim they
were 'doing something' while at the same time giving M$ a reassuring
wink.

 ...Cheers,

 ...Norm

***********************************************
* Brought to you by OS/2 Warp v4.0 and PMMail *
* For a copy of my PGP key send me a message  *
* with "send pub_key" in the subject          *	
***********************************************