Linux-Advocacy Digest #215, Volume #34 Sat, 5 May 01 14:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("JS PL")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Article: AOL in cahoots with Compaq, HP to derail WinXP, .NET? ("mmnnoo")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <hi everybody!>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 13:25:48 -0400
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JS PL wrote:
> >
> > "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > "JS PL" <the_win98box_in_the_corner> writes:
> > > >
> > > > That line of shit was debunked ages ago, IN COURT! No vendor has
ever
> > been
> > > > prevented from selling other OS's installed. Even the DOJ's
witnesses
> > affirm
> > > > that fact.
> > >
> > > This is just untrue.
> >
> > Microsoft offered three principal types of operating system license
> > agreements: per copy, per system and per processor. A per copy license
> > obligated an OEM to pay Microsoft a royalty on every computer shipped
with a
> > copy of MS-DOS installed on the computer; a per system license obligated
an
> > OEM that wished to install a Microsoft operating system on computers
that
> > bore a particular model designation to pay Microsoft a royalty on every
> > computer shipped that bore that designation; and a per processor license
> > obligated an OEM that wished to install a Microsoft operating system on
> > computers that contained a particular microprocessor, e.g., an Intel
> > 80386SX, to pay Microsoft a royalty on every computer shipped that
contained
> > that microprocessor. (See Kempin Dep. (Exh. 1) at 13-14;
> >
> > OEMs were not required to use a particular license type, but rather
could
> > choose among the various options. (See, e.g., Gates 10/27/97 Dep. (Exh.
2)
> > at 45-46; McLauchlan Dep. (Exh. 3) at 31; Lin DOJ Decl. (Exh. 4) at
C005866;
> > Waitt DOJ Decl. (Exh. 5) at C005868.) No OEM was obligated under any of
> > Microsoft's licenses to install MS-DOS or Windows, nor was any OEM
> > prohibited from installing DR DOS or any other competing product. (Lum
Dep.
> > (Exh. 6) at 89-90; Fade Dep. (Exh. 7) at 110; Hosogi Dep. (Exh. 8) at
30.)
> >
> > > > At the hieght of per processor licence aggreements only about half
of
> > the
> > > > OEM's opted for that type of licence, of that half, about 25 OEM's
still
> > > > shipped other os's on the same proccessor with full agreement of
> > Microsoft.
> > > > MS has always strived to provided customers with exactly what they
want.
> > > > It's 99% of the reason everyone chooses their products.
> > >
> > > What an inane paragraph. You are either delusional or in the pay of
> > > Microsoft. I fancy the former.
> >
> > During Microsoft's 1994 fiscal year - the final year in which it offered
per
> > processor licenses - approximately 59% of MS-DOS units licensed by OEM
> > customers were covered by per processor licenses. In fiscal year 1993,
> > approximately 62% of MS-DOS units licensed by OEM customers were covered
by
> > per processor licenses. The prior year, Microsoft's 1992 fiscal year,
> > approximately 51% of MS-DOS units licensed by OEMs were covered by per
> > processor licenses. Per processor licenses made up 27% in fiscal year
1991,
> > 22% in fiscal year 1990 and smaller percentages in earlier years. 2a
> >
> > Although per processor licenses generally obligated the OEM to pay a
royalty
> > on every machine shipped containing a particular processor, Microsoft
> > negotiated exceptions with at least twenty-seven OEMs to allow those
OEMs to
> > ship up to ten percent of their machines containing particular processor
> > types without paying royalties on those machines. (See Kempin FTC
Testimony
> > (Exh. 9) at 104-05; Lum Dep. (Exh. 6) at 92; Apple Dep. (Exh. 10) at
23-24;
> > Microsoft's Second Response to Department of Justice Civil Investigative
> > Demand No. 10300 (excerpts attached as Exh. 21) at C001309-11.) Other
OEMs
> > with no such exception in their per processor licenses nonetheless
offered
> > non-Microsoft operating systems with their computers during the term of
> > their per processor licenses. (See, e.g., Fade Dep. (Exh. 7) at 111-13;
> > Roberts DOJ Decl. (Exh. 11) at C005864; Lieven Dep. (Exh. 12) at 187.)
>
> Now, search through that testimony and tell us what the cost difference
> was between per copy licenses and per processor licenses. Check the
> testimony of Microsoft's competitors and tell us what they said about
> why they "chose" per processor licenses.
>
> Also tell us how a per processor license would allow any other OS to be
> shipped without paying for the second OS, if that second OS is allowed
> to be shipped at all.
>
> ---------
>
> "Kempin offered to undercut DRI's price ($13) with a per processor
> license. His price for Vobis selling half of its shipments with MS-DOS
> would be $18. Twice as much.
> When Lieven protested that he wanted to kepp selling DR-DOS in addition
> to Windpws, Kempin told him that he would have to pay a higher price for
> just DOS than for a DOS/Windows combination. He threatened that that if
> lieven did not take s per processor license, with DOS at $9 a copy and
> windows at $15 a copy, then his price for Windows alone would be $35.
> (Under oath, Lieven would later say that that threat was the reason he
> agreed to the deal).
> The Microsoft File. Page 73.
The Microsoft File! Come on....I'd rather hear the National Enquirer's take
on Microsoft dealings.
Lieven took the deal because he (*and everyone) knew there was scant demand
for DR DOS
There was no "threat" by Kempin. Every business on earth operates on volume
discounting. If you want to lower your purchase commitment to HALF then
obviously your discount goes down! Besides we're talking about a miniscule
percentage of the overall price of a computer system when the OS on a $2000
system has a $11.00 difference in price depending on the volume Lieven was
willing to commit to buying. A 1/2 percent impact on the total price of a
system is in no way FORCING anyone to do anything.
>
> "Under the terms of the current per procesor contract, Vobis paid $28
> per DOS&Windows license. 'Microsoft offred us for DOS & Windows under
> the terms of a per-copoy license $23.50 for DOS and $39.95 for Windows.
> This increases our cost by $35,45. Obviously we cannot agree to these
> prices, as we consider these price increases to be a penalty for not
> accepting per system licenses".
> The Microsoft File. Page 204.
Yeah - right.
> "In our opinion the per-system license means in effect the same as the
> per-processor license" Lieven said. "We believe that the majority of
> manufacturers will avoid the above described risks and license all
> their systems exclusively for Microsoft. As a result no other operating
> system will get a chance in the marketplace."
> The Microsoft File. Page 205.
Per-system licence agreements aren't the same as per processor agreements.
Unless maybe the only hardware in the system is a processor! Who the hell
does Lieven think he's trying to kid?
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 17:26:47 GMT
"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> >
> > It's just as unreasonable to expect Apache to perform
> > well on Windows 95. Windows 95 has many of the
> > necessary APIs as hand-me-downs from NT, but
> > their implementation is often not so great.
>
> Totally agree.
> While in theory Win95 / Win98 have baiscally the same API than NT4, in
> practice not very much of that claim is true.
It's close enough to true that a large part of Windows software
will run on both. But as you note there are some sacrifices
made to do this.
> For example: Nearly all of the Character-routines dealing with Unicode
> are either missing or severly limited on the 9X-series.
Almost all the Unicode stuff is missing on Win9x. The idea
is that Windows 9x software will run on Windows NT/2000-
not so much the reverse.
> A lot of File-IO is different.
I dunno. The APIs are the same, though there are
a few subtle inconsistancies. Still, Windows 98 does
support even the fancy things like asynchronous
I/O and such.
I don't think a "lot" of it is different.
> These things lead to programs which cannot use those features, because
> otherwise the vastly bigger market of 9X is left out.
This is true, and its a big reason why MS wants
to move everyone over to Windows NT-derived
operating systems.
There *are* significant chunks of NT functionality
that Windows 95 hasn't got, though you didn't
mention them. Security support is an obvious one.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 20:01:10 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001 21:54:02
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 18:59:37
> >
> >> >>In the real world, an application program ROUTINELY needs to know
more
> >> >>about a function than the API documentation itself can provide.
> >> >
> >> >You know this because of your extensive programming eperience, right?
> >>
> >> No, I know it because people who have extensive programming experience,
> >> who's opinions I trust, and who understand my point correctly, say it
is
> >> so.
> >
> >Extensive mean that they read Visual Basic for Dummies and created their
own
> >Hello World program *without* looking in the book?
>
> None of them use Visual Basic at all, last I talked to them.
Oh, then they program in Basic, then.
> >*No one* with any reasonable programming experiance would say this.
>
> No, no one with any reasonable programming experience would fail to hope
> that this isn't so. But the real world says different, as updating
> libraries routinely break applications (written to the same API, but a
> different implementation) and they are not as idealistic as you are, I
> guess.
Prove it.
> >An API is a contract between a library and the application.
> >The application knows that when it does X, then library would do Y,
because
> >it's spesified in the contract.
>
> I can go along with the analogy of a contract between a library and an
> app, but I'm afraid you've stretched the metaphor too far for me, when
> you say that the application "knows" things because of it. There's
> nothing about being 'in the contract' (which I presume from the other
> things you've said you would identify closely with the documentation of
> the API) which prevents the library from functioning the way the library
> code functions, regardless of any promises made which contradict this
> physical fact.
I've *no* idea whaat you were trying to say here, can you make it clearer?
> >That contract hide as much as possible from the user's of the library,
> >because the point is to give the library as much freedom as possible in
> >implementing itself.
>
> Now contracts "hide" things, as well as allowing programs the ability to
> "know" things. Its all getting too metaphysical for me.
All contracts hides things.
When you buy a book, do you *care* how the book got into the store?
The point is to allow both applications and library as much liberty as
possible, so you hide as much as you can, exposing only what you must.
If you expose too much, you can get screwed by legacy code when you try to
make a better implementation.
> >If you code against the API, and your code doesn't work correctly, either
> >you, or the library, broke the contract.
> >And that is quite rare.
>
> Rare, but always possible, and so expecting it to happen might not make
> sense, but assuming it cannot happen is entirely bogus.
I didn't say it can't happen.
I said that if you program to the API, (meaning that *you* didn't broke the
contract), you can use any library that implement this API (meaning that the
*library* didn't broke the contract.)
> Therefore (if
> you don't mind skipping several steps to see my conclusion) a program
> can only be written to "an API", yet it is still derivative of *the
> library*, if there is only one library that has ever implemented that
> API.
No, it's not.
At best you can say that it's a deriative of the API, not the library.
If I write a fantasy book about a quest to restore a holy object from evil
hands, which book am I deriving from?
Am I deriving from a book? Or from a jenre?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 20:07:39 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001 21:53:51
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 18:55:54
> >> [...]
> >> >There is no "correct" way to implement an API, there are MANY
different
> >> >ways to do it.
> >>
> >> Let's just say that some of those ways MAY work, and some of them WILL
> >> work.
> >
> >No, if it implement the API, it will work.
> >That is the *defination* of implementation.
>
> That's my point: if you change the definition this way, you're just
> playing metaphysical games, identifying whichever thing you want as 'the
> API' at the time, without any need for accuracy or consistency. It just
> isn't practical, I'm afraid. Either the library IS the API, or your
> statement is invalid, because I cannot and will not accept the idea that
> "implementation" includes the necessity for perfection.
A library isn't an API, get that straighten out, at least.
An API define the duties of the library that implements it.
If the library doesn't implements the API correctly, it means that it isn't
an implementation of the API.
Implementing API, by defination, is building a library that follows the rule
that the API define. That is why it's important to hide the implementation
in the API, because you want as much freedom as possible writing the
library.
> >There are countless ways to implement almost any API you can think of.
Some
> >of them are better than others in memory footprint, speed, etc, but *all*
of
> >them will work.
>
> Only if you exclude all concept of optimization from your concept of
> "work". As far as I am concerned, it doesn't "work" in implementing the
> API unless it provides some optimal value. I realize that programmers
> have a more theoretical idea in mind when they say "work". The problem
> is that you don't, and think that "theoretically works" is just as good
> as "works in practice".
As far as a programmer is concerned, a library work if it implement the API
correctly.
Speaking about optimization is something else entirely, T. Max, and is not
the subject we discuss at the moment.
You want to talk optimizations, I'll be more than happy to oblige, but don't
confuse the terms.
A library that implement an API is one thing, a library that implement an
API optimally in regard to <X> is something else.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 20:12:23 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Rick in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001 17:08:34 -0400;
> >Daniel Johnson wrote:
> >> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> >> > > > Considering that DR-DOS was never meant to be a GUI, but, in
fact,
> >> > > > a platform which could, among other things RUN windows on it...
> >> > >
> >> > > DR-DOS, like MS-DOS, was a lousy platform for
> >> > > something like Windows, never mind desktop
> >> > > applications.
> >> >
> >> > Then you might want to eplain why Windows ran on top of DOS.
>
> Correction: does. Or on top of a VMS-like thing, with NT-XP.
It's called kernel, and no, NT doesn't run on "VMS-like thing".
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 20:15:26 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001 23:04:46
> >"WesTralia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >> >
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> > An API is not complete without the documentation of what its function
> >does.
> >>
> >>
> >> An API, is an API, is an API! It's always nice to have a documented
> >> API, but whether an API is documented or not is absolutely exclusive
> >> of whether the API is complete or not.
> >
> >A bunch of function declaration is not an API.
> >You need to know *what* those function does for it to be an API.
>
> Ayende, this is purely what we call an "epistemological" argument.
> "Epistemology" is the philosophy of words, the study of *Meaning*.
> There is little hope for this discussion, particularly given the
> difficulty translating (I know English is not your first language, and
> despite your obvious capabilities, I think use of words becomes too
> arbitrary when discussing epistemology for their to be much productive
> interaction.)
I use Babylon, great product.
> Whether a "bunch of functions" "is" or "is not" "an API" is a matter of
> perspective and context only; there is nothing in the term itself which
> can absolutely determine the distinction.
>
> >Sure, you can use a function declaration in your program, but I doubt
that
> >incorporating std::vector<char> XDdasSR433(int,double,std::string); into
> >your code is going to be very helpful.
>
> Epistemological discussions always become interchangeable, eventually,
> with ontological discussions. Ontology is the philosophy of existence,
> the study of *Being*. If you know what XDasSR433 does, lack of
> documentation will not prevent it from functioning.
When talking about API, knowing what XDasSR433 equal to having it's
documentation.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 20:23:30 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001 21:56:59
> >> >What is an API documentation?
> >> >API can be divided into two parts:
> >> >Functions declaration.
> >> >Text that describe what those functions does.
> >> >
> >> >You would need to be more spesific about the documentation part,
> >> >documentation of what?
> >>
> >> Yes, that was my point.
> >
> >That documentation is part of the API.
>
> (!)
>
> >An API is not complete without the documentation of what its function
does.
>
> You mean the library won't work if a programmer makes a function call
> unless the function is documented?
Of course it would work. The problem would be that you wouldn't know what it
does.
Similar to standing on an elevator, when the floors' buttons has no numbers,
or any other identification.
You know *how* to use them, you don't know what they will do.
And any of those buttons can open the elevators' floor, killing you. (Equal
to crashing the program)
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 17:29:06 GMT
"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> >
> > Maybe, I couldn't say. Very odd that it would
> > use controls that look like Windows 2 controls.
> >
> No, not odd at all.
> It did not subclass to 3DControls, thats all.
I don't think window subclassing is required;
I'm talking about ordinary scrollbars.
What's odd is not *how* they would do that-
I can think of several ways- but *why*.
They didn't give Excel an ugly black and white
appearance; why give Word such deliberately?
I think it supports the view that Word was
first released for Windows 2 or Windows 1,
which had controls just like that.
------------------------------
From: "mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Article: AOL in cahoots with Compaq, HP to derail WinXP, .NET?
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 17:30:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Everett"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 05 May 2001 15:23:56 +0100, dw133
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>
>>> And replace it with what? The AOL desktop?
>>
>>Please don't say that, the thought sends shivers down my spine.
>
> "You've got menu!", "You've got window!", "You've got dialog!".....
>
>
lol
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 13:41:25 -0400
JS PL wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > JS PL wrote:
> > >
> > > "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > "JS PL" <the_win98box_in_the_corner> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > That line of shit was debunked ages ago, IN COURT! No vendor has
> ever
> > > been
> > > > > prevented from selling other OS's installed. Even the DOJ's
> witnesses
> > > affirm
> > > > > that fact.
> > > >
> > > > This is just untrue.
> > >
> > > Microsoft offered three principal types of operating system license
> > > agreements: per copy, per system and per processor. A per copy license
> > > obligated an OEM to pay Microsoft a royalty on every computer shipped
> with a
> > > copy of MS-DOS installed on the computer; a per system license obligated
> an
> > > OEM that wished to install a Microsoft operating system on computers
> that
> > > bore a particular model designation to pay Microsoft a royalty on every
> > > computer shipped that bore that designation; and a per processor license
> > > obligated an OEM that wished to install a Microsoft operating system on
> > > computers that contained a particular microprocessor, e.g., an Intel
> > > 80386SX, to pay Microsoft a royalty on every computer shipped that
> contained
> > > that microprocessor. (See Kempin Dep. (Exh. 1) at 13-14;
> > >
> > > OEMs were not required to use a particular license type, but rather
> could
> > > choose among the various options. (See, e.g., Gates 10/27/97 Dep. (Exh.
> 2)
> > > at 45-46; McLauchlan Dep. (Exh. 3) at 31; Lin DOJ Decl. (Exh. 4) at
> C005866;
> > > Waitt DOJ Decl. (Exh. 5) at C005868.) No OEM was obligated under any of
> > > Microsoft's licenses to install MS-DOS or Windows, nor was any OEM
> > > prohibited from installing DR DOS or any other competing product. (Lum
> Dep.
> > > (Exh. 6) at 89-90; Fade Dep. (Exh. 7) at 110; Hosogi Dep. (Exh. 8) at
> 30.)
> > >
> > > > > At the hieght of per processor licence aggreements only about half
> of
> > > the
> > > > > OEM's opted for that type of licence, of that half, about 25 OEM's
> still
> > > > > shipped other os's on the same proccessor with full agreement of
> > > Microsoft.
> > > > > MS has always strived to provided customers with exactly what they
> want.
> > > > > It's 99% of the reason everyone chooses their products.
> > > >
> > > > What an inane paragraph. You are either delusional or in the pay of
> > > > Microsoft. I fancy the former.
> > >
> > > During Microsoft's 1994 fiscal year - the final year in which it offered
> per
> > > processor licenses - approximately 59% of MS-DOS units licensed by OEM
> > > customers were covered by per processor licenses. In fiscal year 1993,
> > > approximately 62% of MS-DOS units licensed by OEM customers were covered
> by
> > > per processor licenses. The prior year, Microsoft's 1992 fiscal year,
> > > approximately 51% of MS-DOS units licensed by OEMs were covered by per
> > > processor licenses. Per processor licenses made up 27% in fiscal year
> 1991,
> > > 22% in fiscal year 1990 and smaller percentages in earlier years. 2a
> > >
> > > Although per processor licenses generally obligated the OEM to pay a
> royalty
> > > on every machine shipped containing a particular processor, Microsoft
> > > negotiated exceptions with at least twenty-seven OEMs to allow those
> OEMs to
> > > ship up to ten percent of their machines containing particular processor
> > > types without paying royalties on those machines. (See Kempin FTC
> Testimony
> > > (Exh. 9) at 104-05; Lum Dep. (Exh. 6) at 92; Apple Dep. (Exh. 10) at
> 23-24;
> > > Microsoft's Second Response to Department of Justice Civil Investigative
> > > Demand No. 10300 (excerpts attached as Exh. 21) at C001309-11.) Other
> OEMs
> > > with no such exception in their per processor licenses nonetheless
> offered
> > > non-Microsoft operating systems with their computers during the term of
> > > their per processor licenses. (See, e.g., Fade Dep. (Exh. 7) at 111-13;
> > > Roberts DOJ Decl. (Exh. 11) at C005864; Lieven Dep. (Exh. 12) at 187.)
> >
> > Now, search through that testimony and tell us what the cost difference
> > was between per copy licenses and per processor licenses. Check the
> > testimony of Microsoft's competitors and tell us what they said about
> > why they "chose" per processor licenses.
> >
> > Also tell us how a per processor license would allow any other OS to be
> > shipped without paying for the second OS, if that second OS is allowed
> > to be shipped at all.
> >
> > ---------
> >
> > "Kempin offered to undercut DRI's price ($13) with a per processor
> > license. His price for Vobis selling half of its shipments with MS-DOS
> > would be $18. Twice as much.
> > When Lieven protested that he wanted to kepp selling DR-DOS in addition
> > to Windpws, Kempin told him that he would have to pay a higher price for
> > just DOS than for a DOS/Windows combination. He threatened that that if
> > lieven did not take s per processor license, with DOS at $9 a copy and
> > windows at $15 a copy, then his price for Windows alone would be $35.
> > (Under oath, Lieven would later say that that threat was the reason he
> > agreed to the deal).
> > The Microsoft File. Page 73.
>
> The Microsoft File! Come on....I'd rather hear the National Enquirer's take
> on Microsoft dealings.
> Lieven took the deal because he (*and everyone) knew there was scant demand
> for DR DOS
If there was scant demand for DR-DOS, why did Lieven want to continue to
give customers a choice? And why did Micro$oft add features to keep up
with DR-DOS?
> There was no "threat" by Kempin.
Then why did Lieven testify that there was?
> Every business on earth operates on volume
> discounting. If you want to lower your purchase commitment to HALF then
> obviously your discount goes down! Besides we're talking about a miniscule
> percentage of the overall price of a computer system when the OS on a $2000
> system has a $11.00 difference in price depending on the volume Lieven was
> willing to commit to buying. A 1/2 percent impact on the total price of a
> system is in no way FORCING anyone to do anything.
>
You may now quote margins for the major PC vendors of that era.
> >
> > "Under the terms of the current per procesor contract, Vobis paid $28
> > per DOS&Windows license. 'Microsoft offred us for DOS & Windows under
> > the terms of a per-copoy license $23.50 for DOS and $39.95 for Windows.
> > This increases our cost by $35,45. Obviously we cannot agree to these
> > prices, as we consider these price increases to be a penalty for not
> > accepting per system licenses".
> > The Microsoft File. Page 204.
>
> Yeah - right.
Im sure this would have been covered in court. Go search your bank of
testimony. BTW, as noted above, Lieven did testify.
>
> > "In our opinion the per-system license means in effect the same as the
> > per-processor license" Lieven said. "We believe that the majority of
> > manufacturers will avoid the above described risks and license all
> > their systems exclusively for Microsoft. As a result no other operating
> > system will get a chance in the marketplace."
> > The Microsoft File. Page 205.
>
> Per-system licence agreements aren't the same as per processor agreements.
> Unless maybe the only hardware in the system is a processor! Who the hell
> does Lieven think he's trying to kid?
I see. Lieven is lying but Kempin is always straight forward. Bullshit.
--
Rick
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
