On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:53:07 -0700, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
> Umm, it's not a judgment. Microsoft said you can sell Windows and other >operating systems, but there will be a charge for every machine you sell >without Windows -- if you want to be able to buy Windows wholesale. Someone >could comply with this by not selling any other operating systems at all and >never pay the fee. Therefore, this is a lesser restriction than saying you >can only sell Windows wholesale if you don't sell or offer any competing >systems. If I have the right to say you can't use my car at all, I have the >lesser right to impose the lesser restriction that you can only use my car >if you pay me $10. It makes a big difference that MS has a monopoly. If I open an washing machine store and Maytag says, "we only sell wholesale to you if you agree to sell our brand exclusively." What Microsoft did is different for three reasons: 1. the Maytag agreement made up front, not imposed to shut down a business who has never signed a prior exclusivity contract. 2. The appliance store has lots of other brands to sell. In my case, failing to comply with MS's illegal and immoral demand would put me out of busness. They were forcing me into commit criminal acts or lose my business. 3. Maytag makes the machines. In the computer instance, we at CMP custom build the computers. Microsoft have no business telling me what to do when they supplied only one component. I could not even sell a BARE computer. -- Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
