Linux-Advocacy Digest #786, Volume #28 Fri, 1 Sep 00 00:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: HOTMAIL Hacked? (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Gary Hallock)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 19:00:59 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> According to the current legal precedent as I read it, Apple would not
> have a claim should someone reverse engineer their ROMs in order to
> produce Mac clone computers. This disassembly (though possibly not
> direct decompiling) would probably be covered by the copyright issues
> discussed in Vault v. Quaid and Sega v. Accolade, allowing for anyone
> who has a reasonable justification for reverse engineering and even
> copying software (whether in ROM or disk file) in order to compete on
> production of a non-protected work (the Mac 'platform').
Remember the Apricot computer and the Pineapple computer?
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 13:26:38 +1000
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >> Proprietary media encodings: Sorenson, divx, DVD.
> >
> >Really? Microsoft didn't invent any of those. They are not
> >Microsoft-proprietary.
>
> Microsoft controls them. They are Microsoft-proprietary, for all
> intents and purposes.
They are nothing of the sort. Apple holds sole rights to Sorenson, DivX and
DVD are, IIRC, controlled by companies like JVC, Philips and Sony. Not
Microsoft. They just licence the technology necessary to implement a
player.
> >> Proprietary file formats: msword, msxcel.
> >
> >Documented in MSDN -- certainly, Star Office, AbiWord et al have no
> >difficulty reading them.
>
> PTTHTHTHTHH! "Documented". Ha!
Obviously, you are presenting your typical argument of ignorance, since the
file formats are documented.
> >> Proprietary programming interfaces: DirectX,Win32.
> >
> >Mmmmmm... well, given that any OS will have its own proprietary
programming
> >interfaces, that's a given.
>
> Ever heard of POSIX, sweetheart?
Sure have, darl, pity it's not especially helpful.
I await your detailed explanation of how to write anything more involved
than commandline Unix apps with POSIX. POSIX doesn't even include X, IIRC,
let alone equivalents to things like DirectX and OLE.
> >> That 'owned' programming interface also restricts the cabal of
> >> 3rd parties that might otherwise migrate to a new compeitor as
> >> Oracle or IBM might migrate their databases to Linux.
> >
> >Really?
>
> Yes, really.
Fascinating. Please explain how.
> >> A couple of thousand?
> >>
> >> Who are you trying to kid, clueless?
> >
> >Have you ever tried? All it takes is time.
> >
> >Who are you trying to kid? You just claimed that DVD, DivX and Sorenson
> >encoding were MICROSOFT creations forming a barrier to entry.
>
> No, he didn't. Read it again. He said they were proprietary media
> encodings used to maintain MICROSOFT'S monopoly power. He didn't say
> anything (that I can see, but I'm new to the thread) about Microsoft
> *creating* them. I think we all know that Microsoft isn't capable of
> creating anything, really. At least, not anything more than necessary
> to maintain their monopoly.
>
> >Oh... and which market is it a barrier to entry to? You have to define
that
> >too.
>
> Why, DVD software, obviously. Is that hard to define?
Creating DVD software is simply a matter of licencing the necessary
technology. You might have trouble doing it with an Open Source player, but
that's irrelevant.
> I don't know
> what DivX and Sorenson are, but I'm a bit familiar, at least, with the
> DVD issue.
They're proprietry codecs. You know, the types companies spend millions of
dollars developing and perfecting and like to see a bit of financial
reimbursement for their efforts.
> Not that its any different than the USB issue, or the old
What USB issue ?
> Kerberos issue, or any of the other mechanisms and specifications
> Microsoft has tried to control in order to restraint of trade.
Microsoft implemented their Kerberos exactly how the specification defines.
[chomp - more worthless rhetoric]
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 03:15:37 GMT
In article <ZYDr5.51787$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Shocktrooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chad Irby wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad
> > > > > Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > bobh{at}haucks{dot}org wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 23:33:45 GMT, Chad Irby
> > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >"First-world" nations have nuclear submarines that work,
> > > > > > > >and don't screw around for a week before asking for help
> > > > > > > >in rescuing the crew.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The US has lost two nuclear subs over the years. I don't
> > > > > > > know how long they "screwed around" though.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For the ten to twelve seconds that it took for the crews of
> > > > > > those subs to die horribly?
> > > > >
> > > > > Which is apparently what happened here?
> > > >
> > > > We don't know yet, except that due to the Russians screwing
> > > > around, we didn't get anyone down there in time to find out.
> > > >
> > > > Note that the two major US sub disasters of the last
> > > > half-century occurred in deeper waters, and were over in a
> > > > couple of seconds.
>
> There were more than two major post-WWII US sub disasters that we
> currently admit to.
>
> Both the SS-345 and SS-415 were lost at sea with minimum casualties,
> SSN-583 suffered a catastrophic fire, SSG-574 suffered a severe fire
> which lead to a fatality.. Others suffering major failures/problems
> include the SS-342, SSN-653, SSBN-636, SS-582 and SSN-689.. and of
> course the more famous SSN-593 Thresher and SSN-589 Scorpion.
>
> It should be noted that in all of these cases, no attempts were made
> to obtain international help, and in the case of the Scorpion, we did
> not admit to it for quite some time.. and the formal report was only
> released ~98.. 30 years afterwards.
Odds are that in all of those cases, either:
1) Nobody had the capability to rescue, so there was no point in asking,
2) we had the capability, and didn't need to ask for help, or
3) only the Soviets had the capability, and we sure couldn't ask them.
It's quite unlikely that any of our cold war allies had the capability
and we lacked it.
That's quite different from the situation Russia was in, where they
didn't have the capability, there wasn't a cold war going on, and they
sat around for a week pretending they had the capability.
> When it comes to submarines, especially nuclear attack and ballastic
> missile subs.. all nations are extremely secretive. There are perhaps
> others that were lost that are not publically known.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 13:28:44 +1000
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:zxDr5.8411$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Microsoft, however, in true monopolist fashion,
> > presumed that this would make everyone willing to pay the higher cost of
> > NT. Since they could never have simply raised the price of 95 and
> > gotten anyone to buy it, and couldn't lower the price of NT without
> > risking loss of market power, they've had to keep trying these "shell
> > games" (pun intended) with these 'not next versions of DOS/Windows' they
> > keep pushing.
>
> No. Microsoft had planned to have a "Consumer" version of NT available by
> now, for about the same cost as 9x today. Windows 2000 took much longer
> than expected though, and they couldn't begin the development of a
consumer
> version until after Windows 2000 was finished (well, they did begin
> actually, but they couldn't get that far).
>
> You're making statements here with no factual basis.
Our regular viewers will not be surprised :).
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: HOTMAIL Hacked?
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 23:20:13 -0400
On 31 Aug 2000 20:33:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>> These types of things are not usually a hacking of the site itself so much
>> as a hacking of the DNS entries. We would have read about any such major
>> hack, so it was likely a DNS hack.
>>
>
>Which are still the direct responsibility of the site itself. If you cannot
>protect yourself against such 'hacks', you need to be doing something else.
Tell me...
Exactly how does one control the entire DNS of the internet?
Do you hire a person to monitor that entry in every DNS server all
over the entire world or? I'm very curious.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 23:46:45 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Steve Mading in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: Not necessarily. They have a substantial market share. If they are not
>: very careful (and they know this), their large market share alone could
>: provide them with monopoly power,
>
>Not just *could*, but *DOES*. One does not need to excercise a power
>to have a power. You are essentially saying monopoly power doesn't
>exist unless it is actively being used right now..
Well, it must exist before then, because its illegal to attempt to gain
it, too. But it is, you are correct, an abstraction.
Its funny about abstractions. I noticed a couple months ago that one of
the people I'd been arguing with (quite productively, he provided a LOT
of information and a reasoned, if not reasonable, position) named David
Petticord had been reading court documents and seeing the phrase "market
power". It is used in many anti-trust decisions, obviously, and
generally in the form of whether or not a company "has market power".
Now, is this a quantity? Is it a quality? What is it? He reasoned,
quite accurately, though not consistently, that it was a characteristic.
A company has it or doesn't. This is entirely in keeping, I think
you'll agree, with your concept of monopoly power. And mine too, I'll
add.
But in the case of 'market power', a very similar construct, the phrase
is most easily understood as the equivalent of the phrase "sufficient
market size or share to..." do whatever it is that they might be
putatively doing or planning to do or whatever. Rather than simply
being a statistical abstraction, as if it were a quantity or a quality,
or even a metaphorical abstraction, a characteristic that one has or
does not (the most common understanding, or should I say
mis-understanding), the only accurate, consistent, *and* practical
'meaning' of the phrase "market power" is as a *legal* abstraction.
The most hairy beast of all, the feared legal abstraction will rip a man
in two as soon as subpoena him. Fictions stick to him from gravity
alone, and he'll drop fallacies like contempt-of-court charges would
have flown if Lance Ito had a half a brain. The dreaded legal
abstraction takes a bit more than certain primitive thinking styles can
muster to be captured securely. Its no surprise that Dave had missed
it, but he agreed with me when I pointed it out. Market power isn't a
characteristic, its a category.
So why would monopoly power be any less, you say, and why would it not
follow the same guidelines. It is legal for a company to have "market
power", is it not legal for a company to have "monopoly power", so long
as they don't 'use it to monopolize'?
A valid question. It would certainly seem reasonable. Except...
A) It is illegal to monopolize, as simply and comprehensibly stated by
the Sherman Act. It is not illegal to market.
B) It is illegal to attempt to monopolize, so there would be no legal
way to attain monopoly power anti-competitively, and no way to maintain
it except by attempting to do so.
C) Monopoly power is *distinguished from* normal growth and development
of business, while market power is considered an inevitable part of
business. Every company must have *some* market share.
Just as the term "market power" is used to represent (as a legal
abstraction) "large market share", so is "monopoly power" used to
represent something as a legal abstraction. Anti-competitive criminal
activity. Acquiring and maintaining monopoly power, (as opposed to
trying to build the best product at the cheapest cost and selling it to
as many customers as you can find) is illegal.
See United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 570-71 (1966) ("The
offense of monopoly power under § 2 of the Sherman Act has two elements:
(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the
willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from
growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business
acumen, or historic accident.")
Better yet, consider an alternate definition of "monopoly", equally
considered illegal to acquire or maintain even if not "used". This one
comes from a law textbook:
"the ability (1) to price substantially above the competitive level and
(2) to persist in doing so for a significant period without erosion by
new entry or expansion." IIA Phillip E. Areeda, Herbert Hovenkamp & John
L. Solow, Antitrust Law ¶ 501, at 86 (1995)
But I know what's troubling you. All you have to do is read the
Conclusions of Law from the Microsoft case itself. In the indictment of
Microsoft in the introduction to the opinion, Judge Jackson writes:
"the Court concludes that Microsoft maintained its monopoly power by
anticompetitive means and attempted to monopolize the Web browser
market, both in violation of § 2."
Now it certainly appears that maintaining its monopoly power was not
enough to secure a violation. While 'both' clearly means that the PC
monopoly which constituted the first indictment refers to is a violation
in its own right. But the phrase Jackson uses again and again
throughout the decision is "maintain monopoly power by anticompetitive
means". This is what throws a monkey wrench into things. Its quite
hard to get past this, and still consider the mere maintenance of
monopoly power a crime. After all, isn't there "superior product,
business acumen, or accident of history"? Aren't these competitive
means of maintaining monopoly power, and therefore exceptions to the
claim that all monopolies are illegal, because only 'anti-competitive'
monopolization is a crime?
No.
Growth and development of a business are distinguished from willfully
maintaining monopoly power, quite clearly, in precedent cited so often I
shouldn't even need to repeat it. So we devolve to Adam Smith, who
observed, quite accurately, that in a free market, one cannot enjoy
monopoly power at all. This theory is still perfectly valid, for all
the changes which have occurred to what we call "the marketplace" since
he wrote it down. All of the technology we can muster could not cause a
free market to deviate from this behavior; but this doesn't provide any
guarantee that the market is free. A free market is not something you
can easily invoke; they spring up where they wilst, and the number one
rule is they cannot be interfered with as long as they're free. The
number two rule is they cannot be monopolized, or they aren't free.
You can't maintain monopoly power by any *but* anti-competitive means.
So why would a federal anti-trust judge bother to include the spurious,
seemingly redundant phrase so religiously?
My theory is that its because there's a reason to do so, obviously.
That it isn't readily obvious means its probably a legal abstraction.
Perhaps what he means is "we know it is maintenance of *monopoly* power,
rather than merely an attempt to gain *market power*, because it was
anti-competitive." After considering this concept, that the charge of
monopolization is so self-evident that the very fact that trying to
acquire monopoly power is itself proven simply by the fact that the
action was anti-competitive, let's revisit some juicy quotes.
"From these facts, the Court has inferred that if a single firm or
cartel controlled the licensing of all Intel-compatible PC operating
systems worldwide, it could set the price of a license substantially
above that which would be charged in a competitive market - and leave
the price there for a significant period of time - without losing so
many customers as to make the action unprofitable."
"See United States v. AT&T Co., 524 F. Supp. 1336, 1347-48 (D.D.C. 1981)
("a persuasive showing . . . that defendants have monopoly power . . .
through various barriers to entry, . . . in combination with the
evidence of market shares, suffice[s] at least to meet the government's
initial burden, and the burden is then appropriately placed upon
defendants to rebut the existence and significance of barriers to
entry"),"
Note that these come from the first section, convicting Microsoft of the
monopolization of PC OSes. The reason the Judge never says 'and so
they're guilty of monopolization', is because that's already been
stated. There is no more conclusive prove of the conviction given, but
that Microsoft did not overcome its burden to prove that it was *not*
monopolizing. Not that it didn't try.
"At trial, Microsoft attempted to rebut the presumption of monopoly
power with evidence of both putative constraints on its ability to
exercise such power and behavior of its own that is supposedly
inconsistent with the possession of monopoly power. None of the
purported constraints, however, actually deprive Microsoft of "the
ability (1) to price substantially above the competitive level and (2)
to persist in doing so for a significant period without erosion by new
entry or expansion." IIA Phillip E. Areeda, Herbert Hovenkamp & John L.
Solow, Antitrust Law ¶ 501, at 86 (1995) (emphasis in original); see
Findings ¶¶ 57-60. Furthermore, neither Microsoft's efforts at technical
innovation nor its pricing behavior is inconsistent with the possession
of monopoly power. Id. ¶¶ 61-66."
"It is thus obvious that the foreclosure achieved by Microsoft's refusal
to offer Internet Explorer separately from Windows exceeds the Supreme
Court's de minimis threshold."
So having a monopoly is illegal, whether you use it or not, OK? Is
*anybody* getting the point here??? ANYBODY?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 23:49:02 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>You would have gotten a polite response answering your questions. [...]
How come this is all I ever hear out of you. Can't you get with the
program?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 23:50:37 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>> I attempted to elicit information, you were reticent. Your problem, not
>> mine.
>
>Nope. Roberto answered your questions. But they weren't the answers you
>wanted to hear, so you chose to ignore them.
I didn't like them, because there wasn't enough to them to tell if they
were or were not what I might have wanted to hear, once I figured out
what it was.
Why don't you stop whining. If you've got more brilliant ideas than I
do, how come I'm not reading them, but just more whining?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 23:50:45 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >You would have gotten a polite response answering your questions. [...]
>
> How come this is all I ever hear out of you. Can't you get with the
> program?
>
Hu?? What are you talking about? English please.
Gary
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 23:57:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >Joe Kiser wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, fungus
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > ...that's MORE EXPENSIVE than Windows 2000 Professional.
>> >>
>> >> Kinda OT, but does the upgrade install over Win95?
>> >
>> >The upgrade or full versions of Windows Me and Windows 2000 Pro both
>> >will upgrade Windows 95 back to the first version.
>>
>> The *Win95 upgrade*, which costs fifty dollars *more* than the Win98
>> upgrade, as well as the full version, costing more than any other
>> previous version of DOS/Windows, despite the painfully lacking demand in
>> the market, will upgrade Win95.
>>
>> Whatever concessions Microsoft is giving Sierra On-line to have you
>> astroturf for them, it isn't enough. You are *way* too obvious. You're
>> either lacking in integrity, ethics, or intelligence when you post this
>> kind of "not quite a lie but lets obfuscate anyway" crap.
>
>There is no Mike Byrns working at Sierra... what are you talking about?
I am terribly sorry. I have, in fact, made a terrible error. While
responding to Mike Byrns, I checked what I thought were the headers of
his post. It turns out, of course, that they were the headers of your
posts. My apologies for any confusion, and I apologize to Sierra
On-line, as well. Obviously a hasty conclusion which I made may have
impugned their integrity needlessly, and I wish there were some way to
undo that mistake. I retract any accusations I may have made. I have
used Sierra products, and have enjoyed them, and to my knowledge they
have conducted their business ethically and with great integrity.
What I was talking about is that I'm pretty sure Mike Byrns is an
astroturfer. You, I don't know about....
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 23:52:36 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >The OEM licence isn't transferable anyway. So even if you could take your
> >compaq restore cd and install the OS on a different computer you'd be
doing
> >it in violation of the license agreement. That's why Full OEM versions
cost
> >40 bucks.
>
> Define "different computer".
It wouldn't matter. I see where your attempting to go. Show me a EULA
example, and I'll tell you what the qualifying hardware is, because it will
explain it in that certain EULA. For the most part, if you buy a major name
OEM computer system the operating system that came with it cannott be
tranferred to a different system. And some manufacturers create installers
that look at the BIOS to verify, although that doesn't mean that BIOS is
the qualifying hardware. That's the gist of it. I'm not going to waste time
arguing the minute details of certain EULAs until you scan and post a
particular one. I'm certainly not going to sort through a wall of boxes
looking for an old OEM EULA.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 00:04:52 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> You didn't pay for MacOS, originally. It was included in the price of
>> the system, and the marginal cost of the 'license' is actually negative,
>> to Apple; it would cost them more to run tech support for those who
>> bought a Mac without an OS already installed. You aren't suggesting the
>> *replication* costs are what causes OEMs to pay for Windows, are you?
>
>If that's the case, then surely you've got no problem with PCs coming with
>Windows then?
You mean in the abstract, apart from Microsoft's criminal behavior? No,
I've got no problem with PC pre-loads, per se, regardless of what OS is
provided. I can't see any OEM wanting to pay huge dollars for the
crappiest OS ever made instead of using free Linux, though, so that
'apart from the monopoly' part is a pretty big one, eh?
>Becuase you didn't pay for Windows, originally.
Yes, I did. And I'm still paying for it, in the restrictive licensing
I'm forced to endure. As well, I paid money for Windows in a way Mac
customers don't pay for MacOS, because Windows is a third party product,
not 'manufactured' by the OEM, as MacOS is by Apple. The OEM had to pay
at minimum $17, and probably much more. They didn't make a profit on it
directly, and Microsoft's contracts won't let them show it as an invoice
item (even at zero costs!) but I sure as hell paid for it.
>It was
>included in the price of the system, and the marginal cost of the license is
>actually negative to Dell, Gateway, Compaq et al -- it would cost them more
>to run tech support for those who bought a PC without an OS already
>installed.
Yes, but it would cost them less to run tech support for those who bout
PCes with *any* other OS to speak of. That's the point. I didn't pay
Gateway or Dell or Compaq any money for Windows, I guess, because
Microsoft got it all, and more. I still paid for it, and so did Gateway
and Dell and Compaq.
I actually made all this plain in my original message, so unless you
just want to be another moron who gets bored to tears by my inability to
shut up, I'd suggest you browse on down to the next message, and just
think about it for a while.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
