<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I'm hesitant to get into this, but I keep wondering why, if there is
> no other competing OS, or not one worth worrying about, the MS
> business agreements are so draconian? Why would a company come up with
> such heavy handed agreements if it wasn't worried about competition?
>
> Yes, I know, they can do whatever they want, it's not a crime,
> etc. However when they use their market position to disallow
> competition, it sounds to me like they're worried about something, and
> trying to squelch it.
If they have a choice, should their competitors have 1% of the market or
0%, they'll choose zero. Who wouldn't? What they're worried about is a
customer going to a store because they advertise that they have Windows and
being switched to another OS.
In fact, they weren't draconian. A draconian agreement would have been
one that prohibited you from selling any other OS if you want to sell
Microsoft OSes. Instead, what they did was much less restrictive in that it
only affected discount levels rather than right to resell and only increased
the cost of selling other operating systems rather than prohibiting them.
Many other companies totally prohibit you from selling competing products if
you want to get the wholesale price on their products.
DS
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
