Re: [Haifux] "Windows-Free" laptops in Haifa
Quoting Shachar Shemesh: > Zvi Devir wrote: > > However, I won't start the process with > > you unless you really want to go all the way (up to district court if > > required). > > > It is not at all trivial that, should the small claims court fail, the > district court is an option. If memory serves me correctly, you are not > automatically allowed to appeal small claims court decisions. You can > ask for permission to appeal, but there is nothing forcing the judge to > agree. If you don't like it, you need to press the claim in the regular > (Shalom) court. > > Shachar That's right, appealing small claims court decisions is not an automatic process. However, district court decision can set a precedent, while small claims or regular courts do not. Also, some arguments are more easily accepted in district court and not in regular or small claim courts. Let just say that I have allocated some funds and got some legal advise just in case I will loose at small claims court and have to take the case one step further. Luckily or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, Dell decided to sign a reconciliation agreement with me, so no precedent was set. Zvi. ___ Haifux mailing list Haifux@haifux.org http://hamakor.org.il/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haifux
Re: [Haifux] "Windows-Free" laptops in Haifa
Zvi Devir wrote: > However, I won't start the process with > you unless you really want to go all the way (up to district court if > required). > It is not at all trivial that, should the small claims court fail, the district court is an option. If memory serves me correctly, you are not automatically allowed to appeal small claims court decisions. You can ask for permission to appeal, but there is nothing forcing the judge to agree. If you don't like it, you need to press the claim in the regular (Shalom) court. Shachar ___ Haifux mailing list Haifux@haifux.org http://hamakor.org.il/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haifux
Re: [Haifux] "Windows-Free" laptops in Haifa
Shachar Raindel wrote: > > > When shopping for my laptop (Dell Inspiron 1525) I found out that > windows Vista basic have a NEGATIVE price of 200$ - the N series which > had linux preinstalled cost 200 USD more than the normal variation, > which was (and still is) in a constant "sale", offering it 250$ > cheaper. Therefore, I got a machine which had windows preinstalled, > and upgraded to linux upon arrival. On the upper side though, since > Dell officially support linux on their laptops, the hardware support > is excellent, and the laptop is working with Ubuntu 8.10 flawlessly > (except for video tearing due to problems in Intel's drivers). > > --Shachar > And here's the kicker. Since you obviously did pay for the windows you got, you are still at liberty to ask for a refund for it. Even better, should Dell try to give you a hard time over it, they will be hard pressed to explain why two identical hardware laptops should cost so differently, unless they are getting some illegal (for Microsoft, not Dell*) incentives. Shachar * The consent decree that Microsoft is bound by does not allow it to force, or even financially encourage, OEMs to ship Windows over other platforms. It is not illegal for Dell to accept such a bribe, but it is illegal for Microsoft to give it. ___ Haifux mailing list Haifux@haifux.org http://hamakor.org.il/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haifux
Re: [Haifux] "Windows-Free" laptops in Haifa
Orr Dunkelman wrote: > > > The only reason Microsoft cannot have the benefit of "Buy us or > else..." is the fact that they control too large portion of the > market. The moment they will go under 70%, they would be able to > actually say the above (70% may be country dependent). > > > There is something more behind the monopoly argument that needs to be understood. The core to understanding anti-trust laws is to realize that a monopoly can profitably do things that a non-monopoly cannot. Those are the things that harm competition, and those are the things that anti-trust laws tend to make illegal. For example, a monopoly can raise prices with no or little change in the demand. A non-monopoly, if they raise prices, will see a decline in the demand for the product, as customers opt for the cheaper competitors. BECAUSE a monopoly can raise prices, they are not allowed to. Another example. A non-monopoly can bundle products together. They are pressured by potential lost revenue from the separate products not to do so, coupled with the fact that the bundling itself has limited effect. Should a monopoly bundle two products together, especially if one of them is non-monopoly, the result for the market is overwhelming. Since the monopoly product enjoys a more or less fixed demand, the monopolist can combine the price of the bundled product into the monopoly product, and not lose revenue. Since a monopoly can do what a non-monopoly cannot, it is illegal for it to do so. Last example. A non-monopoly has a strong incentive to use standard protocols. Using standard protocols allows easier switching to the product from other standard conforming competing products. A monopoly will view, with a good reason, any ease of switch to be an ease of switch AWAY from the monopoly product. As such, they will opt to use non-standard non-documented protocols, which make any switch more difficult. Again, because they couldn't afford to do that as non-monopoly, it is (or may be) illegal for them to do so as a monopoly. In short, anti-trust laws are in place to make monopolies behave as if they have competitive pressure, despite the fact they don't. Shachar ___ Haifux mailing list Haifux@haifux.org http://hamakor.org.il/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haifux
