Open Source Firm Files Microsoft Complaint

Rob writes "Computer Business Review is reporting that Australian Linux and open source consultancy Cybersource Pty has filed a complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission calling on it to force PC vendors to offer hardware without Microsoft Corp's Windows operating system. The company has estimated that the cost to Australian consumers of Microsoft's monopoly position is at least AUS 200m ($151m) a year, although that calculation is based on an assumption that Windows and Office account for 50% of the company's AUS 1bn ($759m) annual Australian revenue, and that its 80% profit margin for those products should be more like 10%."

Comments

Even I got Windows Preinstalled

[mahesh_gharat]

I got Windows preinstalled; even though I do not use it at all. The money I paid for my Laptop must include the OEM version of Windows that I have got. :-(

Re:Even I got Windows Preinstalled

[dtfinch]

More likely the advertising that got preinstalled paid for the Windows that got preinstalled, both of which you've removed by now.

Price ?

[hayalci]

When they offer; they make the windowsless hardware more expensive. That issue should also be adressed.

Re:Price ?

[FidelCatsro]

That is one of the key issues here as i see it .
If MS are giving these companies incentives to stifle the opposition it needs addressed .I honestly do not have any problem with them selling only one make of OS , so long as the choice is made without pressure tactics.

OSS is about choice and freedom , forcing companies to offer alternatives is removing their choice.
If people want OSS on their PC or no software at all (and i know for a fact there is a lot of people who do) then there is a market open and waiting to be jumped upon by an adventurous entrepreneur .

Not offering It reminds me of an old joke/parable which i will paraphrase
Man walks into a store and asks for product X , the store owner says "Jeesh , your the 100th person to come in these week looking for that , as i told the others we don't sell it "

Re:Price ?

[Ingolfke]

One explanation could be that supporting hardware without an OS is more expensive, possibly due to increased support calles from newbie's who can't get their OS to work or from cheap-skates who don't understand why they can't seem to boot the system (or install their pirated copy of Windows). It could also be, that if an alternative OS is installed that it costs more for to test, install, and support per sale than Windows, so the costs have to be higher.

I think this could be investigated, but it seems to me that the ONLY negative illegal outcome would be that MS is demanding that any OEM who installs Windows sell those boxes for less than equivalent non-Windows boxes. This type of blatent anti-competitive behavior doesn't seem like something MS would do considering their troubles w/ the law in the U.S. and E.U. in the past. They would, I guess, have to mask this behavior somehow. Does anyone have any details about this... does this condition really exist or is it just anti-MS FUD?

Re:Price ?

[faloi]

They would, I guess, have to mask this behavior somehow. Does anyone have any details about this... does this condition really exist or is it just anti-MS FUD?

The only way that I've heard of them masking that sort of behavior is in terms of bulk pricing arrangements. So if you sell a million boxes with pre-installed Windows, we'll give you a discount on each copy. Supposedly, and I can't remember where I read it or if it was true, MS would offer a greater discount to vendors that only provided MS than to those who offered multiple choices. If a company saw the take rate on non-OS or alternate OS boxes was relatively low, it would be more economical to sell them all with Windows and reap the higher discount. Plus there's less to do manufacturing-wise to make sure everything is working right. Instead of having multiple burn-in scripts (or what have you) for multiple OS's (or even one for Windows, one for and non-Windows) you get one to work with and refine.

As much as I dislike MS making forcing people (whether directly or indirectly) to buy their OS, one has to wonder how many people really throw another OS on their box is. I would think a lot of the people that put another OS on tend to build their own computers for personal use (although last time I broke down and bought a system from a vendor, to avoid the time and headaches from building one), and corporate standards tend to drive the rest.

Re:Price ?

[SA Stevens]

Well, if it's a Mercedes dealer and the person comes in asking to buy a Cadillac, or a BMW dealer and the person comes in wanting to buy a Fiat, that is a perfectly good response.

Full service 'system vendors' don't have to, and it would actually cost them more in support costs, to bundle an OS that they don't have staff expertise in.

Libertys

[FidelCatsro]

As much as i dislike the practice it should not up to the government to decide what companies sell.
That is the decision of company.
I find it as silly as forcing restaurants to provide a vegetarian alternative (I am a vegetarian btw). If these companies can see profit in doing it they will , or they don't they will lose business , Simple as that.

What the government should focus on however is making sure that Microsoft are not using exclusivity deals that would harm the company if they did sell computers without MS windows .
This is key in a free market , making sure its fair.
make sure large companies are not abusing their power, do Not in forcing smaller companies to stock what is deemed acceptable and to hell with their profits .

I do not want to buy a system with MS windows and I will choose a vendor who sells systems without it , I don't want to force a vendor into my way of thinking though .

Re:Libertys

[the_unknown_soldier]

You'll find thats not how Australia works. The ACCC is charged to enforce the law which prevents unfair competition.

Key examples of what they do is forcing the major telco not to undercut competitors because it has wholesale ownership of the infrastructure. This theory could easily be applied to not letting people get a pc without windows on it.

Re:Libertys

[badfish99]

The whole point is that Microsoft is trying to fix things so that you can't choose a vendor who sells systems without it. That's what people are complaining about.

Re:Libertys

[FidelCatsro]

it has called on the ACCC to require tier one and tier two PC vendors in Australia to offer desktop and laptop products without a pre-installed operating system, arguing that it will level they playing field for Microsoft's competitors and increase consumer choice.

This is what i have a problem with , what they should be doing is calling on the ACCC to force Microsoft to stop using exclusivity deals and the like.This is a clear case of antitrust .
If companies wish to not sell systems without OSs then that is their right , forcing them to is not something i can support.
however i can easily support slapping MS with an Anti-trust suit and having them face stiff penalties if the practice continues.
I would love to see all the vendors offer alternatives such as linux or no OS , I just want to see it happen another way

Re:Libertys

[P-Nuts]

As much as i dislike the practice it should not up to the government to decide what companies sell. That is the decision of company. I find it as silly as forcing restaurants to provide a vegetarian alternative (I am a vegetarian btw). If these companies can see profit in doing it they will , or they don't they will lose business , Simple as that.

No, this is more like a meat company saying that every meal you buy in a restaurant must include their meat.

And if you want to sell vegetarian meals too, then you'll have to pay a lot more for the meat.

Not only that, but they're the largest meat company in the world, and the only company that sells chicken, which is the most popular sort of meat there is.

Re:Libertys

[Linus Torvaalds]

If these companies can see profit in doing it they will , or they don't they will lose business

The point at which it is appropriate for a government to step in is when all the companies can happily tell the unhappy people to go fuck themselves because there's no alternative.

Try buying a laptop without paying Microsoft. How will the companies "lose business" when going to a competitor doesn't solve the problem? There's no alternative because the laptop market is so dominated by the big firms that niche markets like Linux laptops aren't worthwhile to big firms, and small firms can't cater to that niche because the big firms get volume discount that makes it cheaper to buy from the big firm and throw away Windows even though you paid for it.

Essentially, the market has fallen into a situation where any alternative to the mainstream is excluded from competing, and this is when government intervention is necessary.

Re:Libertys

[FidelCatsro]

You slightly missed my point.
My point is that i do not think these vendors should be the target of the lawsuit , Microsoft should be the target for using aggressive tactics to ensure exclusivity . If you stop microsoft from doing this then the vendors of the PC has a choice to offer the system with or without the OS .

Right now they are forced by a large gorilla to have all their products come with their OS , if we enact legislation like this they are forced to offer a system with or without it.
If we stop MS using these tactics they then have a choice .

And choice is one of the main things I admire about OSS

Re:Libertys

[raxxerax]

Then your problem is with the meat company not the restaurant. Don't force the restaurant to sell vegetarian meals. Force the meat company to stop applying anti-competitive pressure on the restaurant. Then, if the restaurant sees fit to sell vegitarian great; if not, at least the vegitarian option competed on an even playing field.

Bloody english...

[Anonymous Coward]

But my OpenOffice files *are* Microsoft compliant....

Oh, you said "complaint"? Never mind.

Got to love those special grammar rules that are only applied to headlines....

This is just wrong!

[vbuitoni]

I want to have the option to buy only the hardware, and install the softwares of my choice, with the vendor of my choice.

This seems abusive to me, because besides forcing the customer to buy the software of the vendor's choice, it also does not give the option for the customer to install the software with another vendor (or himself, if he wants)

The vendors must have a price for just the hardware, and IF the customer says he wants the software, the vendor sells the software separately.
Of course the vendor can make discounts for people buying the hardware and the software.

The main abuse here is that the customer can't be forced to buy something he doesn't want.
That's how I feel about it.

Wrong Target...

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

I don't think hardware companies should be forced to offer anything they don't want to offer, it's their business what they make and sell. And, that is exactly the point, if Microsoft is exerting pressure on them to only offer only Windows, than THAT and THAT ALONE should be the issue. If Microsoft is exerting pressure on them to raise the price on OS free or Linux boxes, than THAT and THAT ALONE should be the issue. But assuming a hardware company is free of outside pressure, they should be able to offer whatever they want.

Re:Wrong Target...

[CharlieHedlin]

I agree, but the law works more like a sledgehammer than a scalpel making it very hard to target microsoft in the way you describe. There will always be deals struck in attempts to circumvent the law.

Forcing the manufactures to offer the computers without an OS would lead Microsoft to drop the pressure. PC manufactures already offer choices between XP Pro, Media Center and Home Editions, so a no OS choice isn't going to burden them.

Government controlling businesses?

[jasonmicron]

If you were owned a small grocery chain and decided that you only wanted to sell one brand of bread, why should the government be allowed to come in and demand that you now stock every single brand of bread out there?

Sounds quite communist to me.

Re:Government controlling businesses?

[vga_init]

Well, how about if you ran a store and you wanted to bundle your cheese with this bread. You have decided that everyone who buys cheese must also purchase a loaf of your bread, and because the bread manufacturer has forced you to sign an agreement that if you want to carry their bread (apparently the only bread that people want), you MUST agree to this bundling practice whether you like it or not.

It's not about the right not to stock something, it's about the right not to buy something. Product bundling is convenient for SOME, but to force it on even those that don't want it is as ridiculous as the riders that congress puts on our bills.

Can someone please explain?

[Soul-Burn666]

In my many years of buying desktop computers, there was not even one instance where I got Windows pre-installed and surely not paid for it specifically.

Me, like everyone I know (and many I don't), just go to the store's websites, browses for parts, adds up the prices and give that to the store. You only pay for an operating system if you chose to add it to the list. Unless the price for the OS is somehow laden on the computer parts, we don't pay for it. (Also we usually get a 5-10% discount by bargaining, but that's out of the point).

So I guess it only applies to laptops and such?

Re:Can someone please explain?

[yRabbit]

I'm guessing it would also apply to a full computer bought all at once. Such as the kinds that are always in Dell, Gateway, etc. commercials.

But my father and I, we always buy the parts separately from store websites as well.

Re:Can someone please explain?

[Soul-Burn666]

I don't know of ANYONE who buys "full computers at once".
I don't think this form of sale is even available here.
If anything, it's just predefined custom builds, but you can deviate from them.

Re:Can someone please explain?

[vbuitoni]

TFA suggests that this form of sale is available in Australia...

Re:Can someone please explain?

[Chuq]

I don't think this form of sale is even available here.

By "here" you don't mean Australia do you? Are you saying you've NEVER seen a Dick Smith or Harvey Norman catalog? You've never worked at/visited an office/school full of Compaqs, HPs, Dells etc?