____/ nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on Monday 09 July 2007 15:42 : \____
> For years the trolls on cola have been saying that it was a typical
> Linux zealot lie that Microsoft pressured OEM's not to offer Linux
> preinstalled. They have repeatedly tried to claim that the only
> reason that OEM's did not offer Linux was because there was no demand.
>
> The following is from the Comes petition (Iowa trial).
>
> <Quote>
> Mic rosoft's Predatory Response to GNU/Linux
>
> 142. GNU/Linux is an "open source" operating system that runs on Intel-
> compatible PCs. Microsoft has targeted the competing operating system
> by pressuring Intel, as well as various major OEMs such as Dell and
> Compaq, to boycott Linux. In late 2000, for instance, Microsoft
> executive Joachim Kempin described his plan of retaliation and
> coercion to shut down competition from Linux: "I am thinking of
> hitting the OEM harder than in the past with anti- Linux actions" and
> will "further try to restrict source code deliveries where possible
> and be less gracious when interpreting agreements - again without
> being obvious about it," continuing "this will be a delicate dance."
>
> 143. LindowsOS (now known as Linspire), which is developed and
> marketed by Lindows.com, Inc., is an Intel-compatible PC operating
> system based on Linux and which competes directly with Microsoft on
> the. PC desktop. On information and belief, Microsoft interfered with
> Lindows.com, Inc.'s ability to distribute its product through the OEM
> channel. Microsoft also initiated a lawsuit against Lindows.com, Inc.
> that adversely affected Lindows.com, Inc.'s ability to exist, obtain;
> funding and conduct business. Mierosoft's Antieompetltive Agreements
> With OEMs To Foreclose Competition 144. Microsoft Chairman and former
> CEO, Bill Gates, reportedly summarized the effects of the DOJ's 1995
> consent decree--which banned "per processor" licenses, among other
>
> 47Page 48 exclusionary licensing termsmas "nothing." Microsoft was
> able to devise other restrictive OEM agreements to foreclose
> competition in th¢Õ 145. A "per system" license was the practical
> equivalent of the "per processor" license. Under the "per system"
> license, the OEM had to pay royalties to Microsoft for every computer
> of a particular "model" or "system" that it shipped--again, as with
> the "per processor" contracts, regardless of whether the PC contained
> Microsoft's operating system. Microsoft defined "system" and "model"
> so broadly in its contracts that virtually all of an OEM's production
> was subject to Microsoft's "double tax" if the OEM wanted to give the
> consumer a choice of operating systems. Microsoft did not agree to
> give up its "per system" licenses in the 1995 consent decree, even
> though the Department of Justice warned the federal district court
> that "per system licenses, if not properly fencet in, could be used by
> Microsoft to accomplish anticompetitive ends similar to 'per
> processor' licenses"--and in fact were. 146. Another way that
> Microsoft found to circumvent the federal court's 1995 injunction
> forbidding its use of "minimum commitment/per processor" licenses was
> what Microsoft calls its "Market Development Agreements" ("MDAs").
> Microsoft contrived the MDA as a device to evade the Court's decree
> prohibiting Microsoft from requiring OEMs to adhere to "minimum
> commitments." As Steve Ballmer (Microsoft's current CEO) acknowledged:
> "We have always given better prices to customers who work with us to
> make the market. Those used to take the form of commits [i.e., minimum
> commitments] which we do not do anymore as a result of the [federal
> court's] decree but we still believe in rewarding people who help us
> create demand. Hence the iMDA." Under the MDAs, Microsoft granted
> large discriminatory price concessions to those OEMs that would agree
> to market and promote Microsofl's Windows to the exclusion of any
> rival operating system. These discounts were
>
> 48Page 49 calibrated so as to force the OEM to sell most of its
> computers with a Microsoft operating system in order to obtain the
> lowest price. 147. Because the OEM market is so competitive and profit
> margins are so thin, every OEM had to get the lowest price it
> could :from Microsoft in order to survive. In March 2002, a Gateway
> marketing executive (Anthony Fama) testified before Judge Kollar-
> Kotelly in State of New York et al. v. Microsoft, Case No. 98-1233
> (CKK), about how Microsoft used its MDA program in order to force OEMs
> to market Microsot's operating system exclusively: "Given the
> substantial nature of these discounts, participation in the MDA, as a
> practical matter, is not optional. In other words, not
> receiving :these discounts would put Gateway at a substantial
> competitive disadvantage, and Gateway has communicated that self-
> evident proposition to Microsoft." Microsoft also used its MDAs to
> lock OEMs in and competitors out by offering a discriminatory price to
> the OEM in a later year provided (a) the OEM reached Microsoft's
> imposed goal of Windows sales over competitive sales in the prior year
> and (b) renewed its exclusionary contract with Microsoft for ,the
> later year. This placed the OEM on a perpetual treadmill, eliminating
> competition indefinitely. Microsoft continued these exclusionary terms
> at least past April 2002. 148. One method for encouraging competition
> in the operating systems market would have been the sale by OEMs of
> "naked machines" (i.e., computers that are sold without a
> predetermined suite of software forced upon the consumer). "Naked
> machines" would allow consumers to choose their computer's software
> configuration from an array of competitive software products, either
> for preinstallation by the OEM or installation by the end user.
> Microsoft sought and obtained the agreement of the OEMs to refrain
> from selling "naked machines." Instead, OEMs universally agree to
> "bundle" Microsoft applications and operating 49Page 50
>
> systems with their computer hardware, effectively depriving consumers
> of any competitive choices. These restrictive agreements exited before
> 2000 but, in 2000, Microsoft ratcheted the restriction up so that OEMs
> are forced to forfeit all discounts otherwise earned if they ship any
> "naked machines" to consumers. This heightened restriction, which (on
> information and belief) continues to the present, prohibits PC users
> and PC retailers from buying and installing lower priced or better
> quality operating systems of their choice.
> </Quote>
>
>
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:W24_MZ4ufQYJ:edge-op.org/iowa/iowaconsumercase.org/assets/attachments/Petition.pdf
Some discussion here:
http://digg.com/linux_unix/Comes_vs_Microsoft_Petition_Shows_How_Microsoft_Blocked_Linux_Sales_PDF
Thanks for the headsup, nessuno. If you find more (like Doug used to do), then
we can all try pushing it to a wider audience.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Apache: commercial software's days are numbered
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 130 total, 1 running, 129 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
|
|
