Slashdot Mirror
Gateway Testifies To Microsoft's OEM Treatment
unconfused1 writes "Gateway testified yesterday about the incredible power that Microsoft wields over OEMs concerning Windows being shipped on every PC. It seems that if an OEM does not ship Windows on every PC they ship that they are severely penalized, and can have their license revoked."
For those who have not read it, I would suggest reading Sony's comments regarding Microsoft's licencing of Windows. This is from Sony's submitted commments to the Microsoft Antitrust case. If you think being an OEM and having to include Windows on every PC is bad, imagine being an OEM and knowing that it is possible that "Microsoft [could] use its monopoly power to force its OEM licensees to give up intellectual property rights."
slashdot!=valid HTML
Dell has something to say on this matter. Read it here. Basically MS e-mails/memos released at the trial last week discussig "hitting the OEM [Dell] harder than in the past with anti-Linux actions," while other e-mails urged Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer to remind Dell "of the meat of why it's smart to be partnered with Microsoft."
Dell's response? A spokesman for Dell, Mike Maher, declined to comment on the case but said the company sells computer equipment with the Linux operating system installed if requested.
"We still offer [Linux] on the [corporate] side and as needed as customers ask for it," he said.
Naturally, this shows a fear of retribution, but shortly after the emails, Dell stopped offer linux on the desktop.
Dell stopped support for Linux? I wonder why?
I won't make you go digging (quoting from the above article):
There's a HUGE difference between Microsoft and Verizon.
One is a monopoly that was granted by government fiat. A natural consequence of that is that the government has the authority to regulate it and impose restrictions. Verizon didn't build its monopoly by building a unique business model or providing unique service. Its monopoly was granted to it by the government.
Microsofts "monopoly", on the other hand was built without government assistance.
You have no way to obtain phone, power or water without the utility (government regulations see to that). You can always obtain an OS without Microsoft.
Also, Microsoft was not cutting off the supply to Gateway. It was not "raising" the prices either. Gateway could always buy Windows at the full retail price at the time of retail availability. There is a cap on the price which is the retail price - a price at which several million people buy the product.
Are you trying to say that because Microsoft has this "monopoly" that it owes the government nothing for, it should be required to offer a discount to Gateway just because it asks for it?
Mmmm.. Donuts
The problem is that there is no free choice. It is not a matter of "sell only Microsoft OSes, and we'll discount you", it's one of "sell only Microsoft OSes, or we disallow you *any* sale of Microsoft OSes." Now, Microsoft is an acknowledged monopoly - no suprise there. An OEM *needs* to sell Microsoft products in order to be competitive. No issue, thusfar.
What Gateway is testifying to is that it's not fair for Microsoft to impose a blanket restriction upon them (via their OEM license agreement that allows them the ability to sell Microsoft products) which prevents them from selling other alternative operating systems at the same time that they are selling Windows. Such a tactic is an unfair leveraging on the behalf of a monopoly. It's legal for Coca-Cola to do it, for example, because there is a definite alternative - Pepsi. Neither are a monopoly. It isn't legal for Microsoft to do it (allegedly) because of (and due to) their monopoly status. Free choice would mean that an OEM could decide for itself how it wanted to sell its products. When a company MUST have a business model that limits that freedom ("don't sell linux systems or we'll effectively revoke your ability to compete in the current market, which we can do because of our monopolization of said market"), something is wrong.
We who were living are now dying
With a little patience
Not quite. Bud is not a monopoly and thus they can enter exclusive relationships. Of course, Bud is easily replaced and a pub being offered a cheap Bud-Only contract versus an expensive Bud or others contract would probably either sell expensive Bud or no Bud, mostly to the loss of Bud, because most of his buisness wont be Bud anyway.
However, if Beer, Inc had dominated the beer market and sold 95% of all beer, the choice for a pub owner to either sell cheap Beer-Only, or expensive Beer plus a microbrew, then the pub owner would have little choice but to dump the microbrew.
Monopolies are a problem, and get into trouble with the law, only when they use their dominant market power to prevent entry for others into the market. Bud would not have enough market power to violate antitrust law, while Beer, Inc, would.