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

[Mitch Stone]

I don't know, but this is the relevant issue. (And not, with all due 
respect, providing an opportunity to rehash the OS/2 saga for the tenth 
time this year.)

Given that the antitrust trial was essentially about Microsoft violating 
the 1995 Consent Decree, and given that such damning testimony was not 
available in the original trial, it seems to me that what the Gateway exec 
is saying now could potentially form the basis for a new antitrust action.
  I don't claim to understand the legal nuances here, but it seems clearer 
now then it ever has before that Microsoft is conducting its relations 
with the OEMs in precise contradiction to the terms of the decree.

On Tuesday, March 26, 2002, at 06:15 AM, Erick Andrews wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 20:24:36 -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?
>>
>> On Monday, March 25, 2002, at 03:34 PM, madodel@ptdprolog.net wrote:
> [...]
>
> I don't recall the exact wording in the consent decree, but I'm sure MS
> put words at the end of it that in effect stated 'as long as this doesn't 
> prevent
> us from innovating'.