[Am-info] Gateway Official Hits Microsoft Licensing In Testimony

[Mike Stephen]

So are you all now beginning to realize what I stated 6 years ago is true?  The only way to break the Microsoft monopoly and let other 
vendors have a fair shot in the market is to separate the hardware from any sales of software.  

All computers should be priced without an operating system.  At the time of purchase you can decide what to buy. This levels the field 
for all suppliers that offer Windows as a choice.  It makes them all advertize a cost without the Windows tax.  Therefore all Windows  
that are supplied by hardware OEM's will have a cost that will be apparent.  

Therefore no OEM will have a better cost than any other without all OEMs knowing what they paid for it.  Also all computers would be 
available without an operating system, so that the system of choice could be installed or a license from another machine that has been 
retired could be used.  

Its the only solution that levels the field, makes a level price for all vendors, and would require no industry effort to manage.

Simple solution to a simple problem.  Why everyone wants to make it so complicated is beyond me...


On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 10:06:48 +0000, John Poltorak wrote:

>On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 08:24:36PM -0800, Mitch Stone wrote:
>> And according to the Yahoo story,
>> 
>> "Gateway also faulted another provision of the new licensing agreement, 
>> which requires PC makers to pay a Windows royalty on every PC shipped, 
>> even if it didn't include Windows. To top it off, to qualify for market 
>> development funds, PC makers have to put a Microsoft OS on every PC. As a 
>> result, trying to sell non-Windows PCs, or even PCs without software, is a 
>> financial loser for computer makers."
>> 
>> My eyes practically fell out of my head when I read this. Wasn't this 
>> tactic expressly  prohibited by the 1995 consent decree?
>
>My God, how long does it take for this to sink in?
>
>Microsoft is above the Law!
>
>The DOJ has more or less admitted that it is too expensive to try and 
>pursue Microsoft for its wrong doing.
>
>After a four year trial which provided damning evidence of the company's 
>misdeeds through the findings of fact and a verdict which found it guilty
>of breaking the Anti-trust Laws, its monopoly position on the desktop has 
>more or less been sanctioned by the DOJ and it has been carte blanche to 
>leverage that monopoly position into what ever industry it wishes to take 
>over next, the server market, digital photography, the music business, the 
>film industry, games market, PDA's, mobile phones, embedded computers, 
>even the Internet.
>
>The nightmare of 'Windows everywhere' is definitely becoming a reality, 
>and the minor fact that something was expressly prohibited a few years ago 
>is not going to stop Microsoft ignoring it since they now know that no one 
>has the balls to stop them doing whatever they choose to do. 
>
> 
>> On Monday, March 25, 2002, at 03:34 PM, madodel@ptdprolog.net wrote:
>> 
>> > From: Computerworld_Daily@Computerworld.com
>> >
>> > Gateway official hits Microsoft licensing terms in court testimony
>> >
>> > Gateway's general counsel said Microsoft's new "uniform" licensing terms
>> > are more restrictive on PC makers than the ones they had reached in
>> > separate agreements with the company.
>> >
>> > http://computerworld.com/nlt/1%2C3590%2CNAV47_STO69541_NLTPM%2C00.html
>
>
>-- 
>John
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Am-info mailing list
>Am-info@lists.essential.org
>http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info


>From the Desk of Mike Stephen