Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Gateway Testifies To Microsoft's OEM Treatment

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the no-surprises-here dept.

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."

4 of 625 comments (clear)

  1. How is this NOT racketeering? by xtremex · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've always known this was true, but now we have a REAL company vouching it..but how does MS do it? Do they send goons in and say "if you don't install Windows we will break your legs?" I mean, how is this different from racketeering? The Mafia does that in major cities with Waste Management. You can only use THEIR company, or they break your legs or set your building on fire. WHich is very similar to how tings work in Eastern-bloc countries.

    --
    If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
    1. Re:How is this NOT racketeering? by Binky+The+Oracle · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's not racketeering because MS isn't technically committing a crime in order to commit other crimes. Well... sort of... antitrust law is a pretty freaky place and I don't like to think about it too much. =-)

      However, from The American Heritage Dictionary via dictionary.com:

      racketeer: n. A person who commits crimes such as extortion, loansharking, bribery, and obstruction of justice in furtherance of illegal business activities.

      I suppose one could say that MS has engaged in extortion of sorts, but since the extortion is in the form of a voluntary license agreement , and not backed up with threat of physical violence (the OEMs always have the "choice" of not licensing Windows), it becomes much harder to prove. That's where the antitrust things come in...

      The real problem with this whole issue is that the OEMs have been stuck between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, they have Microsoft playing both good cop and bad cop: unconscionable licensing terms along with a sweet discount on the OS. On the other hand, they have consumers who are, for whatever reason, convinced that if they don't get Windows on their computer, their computer won't actually work.

      I don't know what the solution is. If I did, I'd be a highly paid consultant for several states' attorneys general. Perhaps if Microsoft were just prohibited from connecting their licensing terms or agreements to any other OS (i.e. no penalties to the OEMs for offering another OS...) that it might be a start. Probably not enough, but a start.

      Or perhaps if the OEMs were to create an association to negotiate with Microsoft for licensing terms things would improve. They really need a single voice, because MS is too good at divide and conquer. The real problem, however, is that MS is also too good at convincing consumers that they really need Windows because "there's nothing else available."

      In this case, Microsoft's goons are the consumers demanding Windows on their PC.

      --

      Slashdot comments... splitting hairs since 1997.

  2. Re:You're COMPLETELY missing the issue... by TheConfusedOne · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually, it goes to establishing continued behavior.

    In this particular case it's even MORE important. The OEM License that Gateway is commenting about is the "new and improved" license that has been created by MS to comply with the DoJ's proposed settlement. This goes directly towards proving how inneffective the proposed settlement is.

    If the actual license is how it has been portrayed and this is the new license to meet the DoJ's criteria, then I think it goes quite far in proving that the settlement doesn't do anything. In fact, it seems to make the situation worse. I find it quite amusing that this license seems to reinstitute the old per-CPU license by calling it a royalty.

    --
    --- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
  3. Re:And what about VA? by JordanH · · Score: 5, Interesting
    • So why did VA stop selling Linux systems?

    Because VA had to compete against price-leader Dell and others selling systems with Linux loaded on them. It's possible that MS only tolerated Dell selling Linux as long as VA was still out there.

    This article is interesting in this regard. And I quote:

    Compaq was also mentioned in other memos, with Microsoft taking the line that OEMs should "meet demand but not help create demand" for Linux.

    So, at one time, it was OK with Microsoft for the OEMs to meet demand, but not to push Linux. Then, later, they clearly pressured Gateway and Dell to drop it completely.

    VA Linux no longer out there pushing Linux? Another highly visible Linux company down...