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

[John Poltorak]

On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 04:36:07AM -0800, Mike Stephen wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 11:49:24 +0000, John Poltorak wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 02:24:57AM -0800, Mike Stephen wrote:
> >> So are you all now beginning to realize what I stated 6 years ago is true?  
> >
> >That's nonesense. I suspect everyone on this list has known the same thing 
> >for many years. 
> 
> I have not noticed anyone but myself campaigning for this solution.

I keep going on about abolishing the Microsoft Tax - that's effectively 
the same thing.

> >There is no debate about that here. The only problem is getting the msg 
> >out. Microsoft seems to have effectively silenced all opposition so there 
> >is no competitor around whom Microsoft dissentors can unite in an effort 
> >to be heard.
> 
> Do you think a solution needs to come from one or any vendor?  Surely you could envision a solution imposed on Microsoft from the 
> courts?

Don't expect anything from the courts.

In the US, there are supposed to be various statutes such as the 
Tunney Act, Sherman Act etc specifically designed to prevent monopolising 
a marketplace. Here's a quote:-

 2 Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.   2

Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty

Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, 
or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, 
to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the 
several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed 
guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be 
punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, 
or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not 
exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, 
in the discretion of the court. 

It is patently clear that Microsoft has almost a 100% monopoly of the PC 
desktop marketplace, and yet there is no prospect any fines or 
imprisonment. What's even worse is the that the DOJ is negotiating a deal
with Microsoft which will allow them to brain wash all the kids in poor 
schools by forcing them to use Windows too.

It's actually staggering what Microsoft is doing and getting away with.

> I have always suggested that the courts enforce a ruling that all computer hardware be made available without software.  The courts 
> forced IBM to do this many years ago.  Have you ever wondered why IBM PC hardware originally was always sold separately from the 
> software? 

IBM has had to learn to be very careful in view of previous Anti-Trust 
encounters.

> >The big PC boys don't want to upset Microsoft by offering naked PCs 
> >because they will be punished as IBM was by chosing to offer an 
> >alternative. The courts should have punished Microsoft very heavily for 
> >doing what it did to IBM when any semblance of an alternative was snuffed 
> >out. The courts have also shown that they are not man enough to deal 
> >with Microsoft's past misdeeds and given a strong signal that it can 
> >continue to penalise uncooperative PC suppliers by the use of 
> >discriminatory pricing for those who want to offer customers an option for 
> >avoiding the Microsoft Tax. \
> 
> If the solution I suggest is imposed by the courts, there will be nothing Microsoft can do about it.  Microsoft would be able to impose no 
> harm on any OEM.

Of course, but it's all about *IF*, but they simply won't. 

It's four years since the Anti-Trust trial started, and Microsoft has 
emerged virtually unscathed. In fact its monopoly position is even more 
entrenched than ever and it is leveraging its monopoly power into more and 
more marketplaces. It appears that if you buy a BMW these days it will 
have a Microsoft navigation system. The Internet is becoming unusable 
without Windows.


 
> >> 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...
> > 
> >The simple solution is the abolition of the Microsoft Tax, but there is no 
> >one lobbying for it.
> 
> I have offered this solution since 1995.  I have posted it many times over the years to this forum. All the Senators and Congresscritters 
> in the US have had a note from me to that effect..  Next time George W Bush drops by my place to ask me for my opinions, I will be sure 
> to mention yet again the easy solution to the Microsoft problem.

You, waiting for George W Bush to drop by and ask your opinion about 
Microsoft is not going to be particularly effective IMV ;-)....

It needs a big company with lots of $$$ to go lobbying in Washington,
or even the Anti-capitalist mob realising that Microsoft is a bigger demon 
that Macdonalds or Nike and going round smashing every computer with 
Windows installed, to get the msg across.

> From the Desk of Mike Stephen



-- 
John