Linux Networks & the Competition Act (Was: Fwd: [d at DCC] Competition Act)

[D. Hugh Redelmeier]

| From: Evan Leibovitch <evan-ieNeDk6JonTYtjvyW6yDsg at public.gmane.org>

| IANAL ... but neither are you.

That is key.  As far as I know, noone speaking in this list on this
topic is a lawyer.

The rules are tricky.  Or at least tricky enough that I think that
nobody has got them right here.

This is a legal question, not a natural justice question.  Trying to
argue based on some notion of natural justice will get you off track.

Heck, even some basic facts are wrong.

MS Windows Vista EULA now allows virtualization
	http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080121-microsoft-relents-vista-virtualization-ban-lifted.html
It is not clear that PC vendors have bothered to change the EULA's
that they ship.  I checked with Acer and they were uninterested in
changing my EULA.

Having a monopoly is not illegal in Canada.  Abusing a monopoly
position is.  Personally, I "feel" that Microsoft has abused a
monopoly position.  With no penalty or remedy.

The Canadian Competition Bureau is pretty weak.  I was party to a
complaint about Microsoft over 7 years ago.  The Competition Bureau
would not even tell us the status of the complaint.  Their reason:
their investigatation process, if any, is confidential!

Here is a pat on the back that they gave themselves for not doing
anything at all about Microsoft.  This is from a talk that the
Commissioner gave 4 years ago tomorrow:

    Comity can apply to questions of abuse of dominance as well. In
    fact, with respect to Microsoft issues that arose a few years ago,
    we recognized that a global remedy was preferable to a patchwork
    quilt approach. In that matter, procedures in Canada would have
    likely resulted in a duplication of efforts, resources and
    remedies to achieve the same result. Given that the market for
    such computer products in North America is highly integrated, the
    Bureau thought it prudent to await the outcome of the case in the
    United States. I believe we should act with moderation and
    constraint when proposed enforcement action conflicts with another
    state’s action, when there is a significantly greater
    nexus with that jurisdiction and our concerns will be dealt with.

http://competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/01867.html

Funny that some of the (pathetically weak) remedies didn't apply to
Canadians.