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

[Darryl Moore]

D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 

That is an interesting article you point to. Unfortunately I fear it is
the article that has the facts wrong. Not this thread.

Refer to the MS EULA directly here:

http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/default.aspx

It is quite clear. The relevant section is the one titled WINDOWS VISTA
HOME BASIC and/or WINDOWS VISTA HOME PREMIUM

4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software
installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise
emulated) hardware system.

I am afraid this is a slightly higher authority on MS license
restrictions then a arstechnica.com article.


> 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!
> 

You did not make a proper complaint then. (unless rules have changed
now)  The Act is here:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-34/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-34.html

Section 10(1)(a) states that for a properly filed complaint, they must
"cause an inquiry to be made into all such matters as the Commissioner
considers necessary to inquire into with the view of determining the facts."

And whether they  make a full inquiry to get those facts or not should
also have no bearing on 10(2) which says "The Commissioner shall, on the
written request of any person whose conduct is being inquired into under
this Act or any person who applies for an inquiry under section 9,
inform that person or cause that person to be informed as to the
progress of the inquiry."

They had to tell you the status of your complaint and what progress they
were making.


> 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
> 

I've read that before. Perhaps now that the EU and US inquiries are
done, it is time for the Bureau to revisit this issue. That is the
implication of the above quote.

cheers,
darryl

--
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