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

[Darryl Moore]

Christopher Browne wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Darryl Moore<darryl-90a536wCiRb3fQ9qLvQP4Q at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> I'm not being disingenuous, and I'm not disagreeing with you regarding
>> the license. I do disagree with you that "This is a 100% legitimate,
>> non-monopolistic approach". Recall in my original post I said many small
>> businesses use the OS that came on their system. Usually that is Win
>> Home or Win Pro. To get the Business version is almost always an upgrade
>> option. This means that if you only want the functionality of Home or
>> Pro, but you want to use it on a Linux based machine, you are still
>> going to have to put out extra bucks to Microsoft for the privileged of
>> doing so. This I see as a barrier and an anti-competitive act as
>> described in section 78(1)(a).
> 
> This may be undesirable in various ways, but for it to be considered
> "anticompetitive" according to the law requires having a fair bit of
> evidence *that the court agrees with*.
> 

Absolutely! And we'll never find out if the court agrees or not if we do
not put it before them. Or in this case the Competition Bureau.


> I fully expect that there are ways of characterizing the above that
> allow interpreting it in a way that does not fit into 78(1)(a).
> 
>> I do welcome your criticism, but I see your accusation of
>> disingenuousness as a slight as it suggest that my posts are less than
>> earnest.
> 
> My sense is that you may be *too* earnest here, that you are
> effectively pre-supposing that your position is the only one that
> could possibly be argued.
> 

I'm not sure how you come away with that. Simply stating my position in
no way implies that I cannot see the merits of other perspectives.
Though I do think I have the stronger argument as I am sure you think
otherwise.



> Microsoft offers operating systems that *are* permissible to run in a
> virtualized fashion; that those versions are more expensive than those
> for which this is inpermissible does not necessarily reflect an
> anti-competitive action.
> 
> Or, to be more precise, a court may not necessarily view that this
> situation represents anti-competitive action.  I think that's what
> Evan has in mind, and I generally agree.
> 

You may be right. We'll never know until the Competition Bureau actually
looks at it.


--
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