No O/S as a right more than ever

[D. Hugh Redelmeier]

Many people on this list take a fairly simple "free market" view.  Me
too.

The free market is impaired by monopolies.  MS Windows has been found
to be a Monopoly.  So there are some legal constraints on Microsoft's
behaviour (but not in Canada; pity).

HP has not been found to be a monopoly.  In the notebook world, it
clearly is not.  So there is no anti-monopoly constraint on HP, nor
should there be.

But let's look again at the MS side of this.

| From: CLIFFORD ILKAY <clifford_ilkay-biY6FKoJMRdBDgjK7y7TUQ at public.gmane.org>

| As long as Microsoft isn't penalizing manufacturers that sell
| "naked" systems or systems loaded with another operating system, there
| is nothing wrong with a manufacturer deciding that it will offer Windows
| exclusively, or not.

For anti-trust reasons, the US Justice Department, plus some US
States, put some constraints on Microsoft.  More than once.
Unfortunately, they put pathetically weak ones in (there was a change
of administration).

One thing that they allow is that Microsoft can bribe vendors to
behave the way Microsoft wants.  The bribe takes the form of advertising money.
Most times that you see Microsoft mentioned in a computer ad Microsoft is
paying the computer company.  And they pay more for good behaviour.
I don't know what they encourage: those agreements are secret, another
thing that should not be allowed of a monopolist.

Just because the US government is captured by Microsoft is no reason
that the Canadian government needs be passive.  I have personally been
party to a formal complaint to the Canadian government about this some
years ago.  Nothing has happened as far as I know (proceedings are
confidential -- not even the complainant gets to know what is
happening).

I think that HP's behaviour is most likely shaped by Microsoft
inducements that are OKed by the US Justice department.  Common sense
says that these inducements should have been forbidden.


| From colin.mc151-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org Mon Apr 20 22:42:43 2009

| Having windows pre-installed on a machine sucks. That noted, the
| question is where to go from here? The best real world option in my
| books would be to:
| 
| - Buy the hardware you want.
| - Refuse to accept the included MS Windows licence
| - Go after the hardware vendor, take them to small claims court if required.

On the face of it, this looks to be possible.  It is what I. Khider
initially asked for, I think.

For some reason that I have not understood, this approach usually
doesn't work even though the legal documents seem to say it is
possible.

Theory: nobody reads those shrink-wrapped "agreements", not even the
publisher of them.
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists