Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> On 11 Jul 2006 11:17:46 -0700, Rex Ballard wrote:
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 07:47:11 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> >> http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=19&l=en&oc=DB110A&s=dhs
> >
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/10/25/inside_the_ms_trial_part_2/
>
> No, Rex. You can't pul a 6 year old article, which refers to 8 and 10 year
> old actions as proof that something you claim that is happening *TODAY* is
> still going on.
Fair enough
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f216100/216127.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft#Criticisms_of_the_case
http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3423941
If you can get me a published copy of actual OEM license agreements
with OEMs such as HP, Dell, Gateway, and Toshiba, you can correct the
record.
I have to settle for those references which have been made public, even
if they are slightly out of date.
Point of fact, Microsoft has, on at least one occaision, threatened to
revoke the license of an OEM for an unexpected re-interpretation of a
clause.
And by the way, Compaq didn't actually remove IE, they just removed the
IE Icon from the desktop and modified the registry to make sure that it
could stay removed.
Microsoft has also been challenged over several other OEM licensing
issues which were claimed to have been designed to prevent the
distribution of Linux (Violating both the settlement and the Appeals
Court Ruling), but Microsoft has artfully dodged the issue by claiming
that their actual intent was only to show that other versions of
Windows were the target. And yet, no OEM currently publishes the Linux
compatibility of their machines in the same ad content that mentions
Microsoft Windows.
I point to a clear cut pattern, and point to actual language in actual
court cases to suggest that there may be a pattern of protecting the
monopoly through methods not currently addressed by the current court
settlement. The court said "you can't interfere with the distribution
of Linux on PCs". Microsoft has managed to dance under and around this
ruling.
This is a common legal tactic. Draft the settlement, then let the
other party assume that the settlement addresses the spirit and intent
of the ruling - to get the settlement language accepted. Then use the
letter of the settlement to circumvent the spirit and intent of the
law.
Microsoft's settlement and license language should be mandatory reading
for anyone considering working for companies like Enron, WorldCom, or
any Mifia Don.
|
|
