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."
do you really think Dell or Gateway is going to get some "Backbone". I didn't say "get some", I said "had some". Past tense. As in they've made their beds, let them lay in them.
the stockholder would probably sue the CEO for not maximizing profits. For all the talk I hear about "they're just doing their legal duty to the shareholders" on Slashdot, how many real court cases do you see where the Board is held liable when a company fails? None. Except in cases of plain fraud and obvious illegal behavior. Shareholders buy stock, they vote their proxies, and they take their chances. That's how the game works. Don't like it? Buy bonds. This is a lame argument and I'm tired of hearing it.
So yes, I realize this is a problem now. I'm glad the Gateway guy was willing to testify. But really, if you consumers aren't going to do something real about it, what difference does it make? Microsoft used to be a rinky-dink little firm that couldn't monopolize its way out of a paper bag. In less than 25 years they did this, how? Giving people the software they asked for.
Since when are these OEM contracts the taxpayers' (and therefore the government's) problem? If these OEMs couldn't figure out what they were risking by giving favor to a single vendor, tough on them-- where's the shareholder lawsuits alleging harm for such incompetent negligence? There ain't none. Why? Because no one has shown how this harms consumers.
Anyway don't most people love Microsoft software, even in the face of good alternatives like Mac OS and Linux (and previously stuff like OS/2-Warp/AmigaOS/BeOS/etc)? So if an OEM doesn't like it, let them get out of the Microsoft game. If any serious hardware maker spent some time fine-tuning a Linux distro for their hardware and a set of standard peripherals they could be selling top of the line systems quickly, with no allegiance to Redmond required. If people don't want such Linux systems, then I guess the OEMs are stuck. Maybe the OEMs should have had some foresight. It's not like this happened slowly, we're talking about a story less than 25 years in the making.
If it can be shown that MS broke some actual laws, fine. So far, the evidence seems to favor an interpretation that they played really really hardball with OEMs. In fact, this testimony shores that up. And that's not my problem. That's just business.
I do not have a signature
It seems that if an OEM does not ship Windows on every PC they ship that they are severely penalized
In another remarkable turn of events, bears have been seen defecating in the woods!
I think its just a matter of whiny customers using the law.
Microsoft gains a certain value when Windows is shipped on all computers. Because of this they are willing to sell it per computer for less than they would otherwise. These computer companies are not being "penalized" for not shipping it on every computer, they are paying more when they install different OS's piecemeal.
Its not racketeering because (even if they are guilty of something) its a monopoly using its monopoly power to extend the monopoly. Being a monopoly in the first place isn't a crime, so there is only one crime here.
I went to the car dealership the other day. All the tires were by the same manufacturer. This is not quite a good analogy because most car companies use more than one source of parts so that just this sort of things doesn't happen. Computer companies reaped the benefits of a homogenous operating system.
Maybe they should be let out of the contract and be allowed to pay full retail on every copy of windows. Hmm...they don't actually want that option do they?
t