Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 07:47:11 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
> > In that case, a fresh complaint can be made to the local consulate (or
> > whatever relevant body/person) which references David's letter as precedent,
> > as unsupportive as it may seem. The followup to David's letter indicates
> > that the vendor has confidence in the choice of the O/S -- a fact that is
> > quickly falsified by stating The Quick Facts. I suggest you look at
> > Ballard's message posted 2006/07/09, 21:03. It is long, so I will quote the
> > relevant bits.
>
> You think Rex knows what he's talking about? It's trivially easy to
> disprove him. For example, he claims Microsoft doesn't allow OEM's to
> include any software that competes with them, such ad competing office
> software, yet a quick trip to a common vendor shows a different tale, of
> offering things like Corel Wordperfect Office 12 (which, I might add, Dell
> "Recommends")
>
> 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/
Senator Orrin Hatch's judiciary committee became interested in the
case, and staffer Mike Hirshland soon discovered that Klein didn't like
Reback. But Dan Rubinfeld, the new DoJ chief economist, agreed with the
Reback-Creighton analysis and persuaded Klein to issue a broader CID
(document demand) to Microsoft, which yielded email containing
Allchin's gloom about how IE could succeed unless leveraged with
Windows, and the evidence that Compaq' Windows licence would be revoked
by Microsoft if Compaq used Netscape instead of IE.
Microsoft would not allow IBM to preinstall Lotus Smart-Suite in their
machines. There was a "quick install" and the installation media was
included with the packaging, but the application had to be installed by
the consumer after market.
IBM was not allowed to install OS/2 with or in conjunction with Windows
95 or any subsequent version of Windows.
|
|
