On 10 Nov, 18:57, "amicus_curious" <A...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> "BearItAll" <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>
> news:1194692143.9906.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
> >> Microsoft's Dirty OEM-Secret
>
> >> ,----[ Quote ]
> >> | They are, in short the secret to Microsoft's success. And the word
> >> | secret is to be taken quite literally: No OEM may talk about the
> >> | contents of his contract, or he will lose his license, and (assumption)
> >> | likely be sued for breach of contract as well.
> >> `----
>
> >>http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/23/13219/110
>
> > This is the one I have difficulty with.
>
> > OEM was a great idea from a buisiness point of view. If Novell, Apple, ZX
> > Spectrum or anyone else had thought of it first they would have done it.
> > If
> > they had something worth buying that is, because even with OEM, the people
> > have to want it or it would have failed, maybe taking those who signed up
> > to it with them too.
>
> > Then secrets between each company that signed up, is just normal
> > buisiness.
>
> > Our buisiness has maybe 250 regular customers, each makes a deal with
> > their
> > representative for a price, some have a price mark up via their online
> > accounts, others only work through the reps or sales desk. But each
> > customer has a mark up that gives them a price benefit from the base price
> > of the products.
>
> > If they ever saw that list, i.e. what they competitors pay, then we would
> > be
> > in trouble. It has to be kept a closely guarded secret, for their sakes as
> > well as ours. As it happens we have experienced this, a disgruntled
> > (sacked) sales Rep mass mailed it out a few years ago, it was pure luck
> > that he made the mistake of emailing the spreadsheets, the data that it
> > linked to didn't go out with it, so customers were asking why we had sent
> > them blank spreadsheets. But it was a close thing.
>
> > Many buisinesses work with this markup policy.
>
> > MS will have given the best prices to those who are likely to sell the
> > most
> > computers. Dell probably got the best markup, Bob's PC shop just off the
> > high street of your local town, will have got the worst markup, because
> > his
> > volume is low. Everyone else would be somewhere in between.
>
> Well, I don't know about all that, but the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936 makes
> it illegal to show preferences in commerce:
>
> "section 2(a) of the Act requires sellers to sell to everyone at the same
> price, while section 2(f) of the Act requires buyers with the requisite
> knowledge to buy from a particular seller at the same price as everyone
> else. Sections 2(c), 2(d), and 2(e) -- as elaborated by the Commission
> through the FTC Act -- prohibit sellers and buyers from using brokerage,
> allowances, and services to accomplish indirectly what sections 2(a) and
> 2(f) directly prohibit."
>
> http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/other/patman.shtm
You ought to read on a bit before you quote stuff. From the same
source as your description of the terms of the Robinson-Patman Act:
"The Act does not apply, for example, to long term leases; to mere
offers to sell; to acting as an intermediary between a seller and its
customers; or to licensing computer software."
> More to the point and counter to the garbage from the original poster in
> this thread, the US Department of Justice and the EU Commission have both
> had complete access to Microsoft contracts in the past 10 years and have
> found no such discriminatory activities. None. There has never been any
> allegation of such a violation. None.
As Microsoft is in the business of licensing computer software, and
the Robinson-Patman Act does not apply to licensing computer software,
it would be difficult for Microsoft to violate that law, wouldn't it?
|
|
