Question: Does requiring the royalty free
distributables in VFP to only be used on the
Windows Platform amount to illegal tying under
15 USCA 1 (the Sherman Anti-Trust Act)?
I contend it is not. As we have seen, tying, in
the classic sense occurs when a vendor requires
you to purchase another product based on another
product purchase. i.e., if you buy an IBM
computer, you would be required to buy an IBM
printer because it is the only printer that
would work. Note that product bundles are
different (buying XBOX and 2 Xbox Games). If you
bought an Xbox at Comp-USA, you would have ran
into this.
In this case, MS is not placing an all out ban
on running VFP on Linux. Rather, MS is simply
saying that you have to pay for it. That is why
I framed the question the way I did above - by
only emphasizing the royalty-free runtimes. This
is the crux of the argument and the key to
making Fox economically viable to some on Linux.
After all, if one cannot distrbute royalty free
with the current run-times, Fox becomes a MUCH
less appealing alternative.
So then, what is the justification for the EULA
and only allowing the distributables to be run
on the Windows Platform?
The answer is......subsidy.
IMO, the reason why we are allowed to distribute
Fox apps royalty free is because sales of
Windows Licenses help subsidize the cost. If you
recall, Fox was not always royalty free. The
Distribution Kit was $300.00 or thereabouts.
This subsidy argument, IMO, is applicable
to.NET as well.
FWIW, I don't think MS could dictate where you
intall the copy of softare your license covers.
Specifcally, if you want to install the DEV
version of VFP or office on Linux, not only can
you do so, I don't think MS could stop you even
if they wanted to. So long as the ratio of 1 lic
per machine exists, MS is not harmed and it
should not care. To try and stop this, IMO,
would amount to MS abusing its Monopoly power.
And that is where the distinction rests in this
case. That said, I don't think the royalty free
runtimes follow in the same vein. I contend that
the consideration given for the use of those run
times is the windows license that will host
those runtimes.
With this in mind, if you want to deploy VFP
apps on Linux, you don't get the benefit of the
Windows subsidy, and therefore, you have to pay
as you go. And FWIW, I think this argument equally applies to.NET.
On one hand, consumers need to be protected
against the abuses of monopoly power. On the
other hand, those protections cannot go so far
as to allow consumers to get something for
nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if this begins to open the door to bringing products liability to the web....
Question: Does requiring the royalty free distributables in VFP to only be used on the Windows Platform amount to illegal tying under 15 USCA 1 (the Sherman Anti-Trust Act)? I contend it is not. As we have seen, tying, in the classic sense occurs when a vendor requires you to purchase another product based on another product purchase. i.e., if you buy an IBM computer, you would be required to buy an IBM printer because it is the only printer that would work. Note that product bundles are different (buying XBOX and 2 Xbox Games). If you bought an Xbox at Comp-USA, you would have ran into this. In this case, MS is not placing an all out ban on running VFP on Linux. Rather, MS is simply saying that you have to pay for it. That is why I framed the question the way I did above - by only emphasizing the royalty-free runtimes. This is the crux of the argument and the key to making Fox economically viable to some on Linux. After all, if one cannot distrbute royalty free with the current run-times, Fox becomes a MUCH less appealing alternative. So then, what is the justification for the EULA and only allowing the distributables to be run on the Windows Platform? The answer is......subsidy. IMO, the reason why we are allowed to distribute Fox apps royalty free is because sales of Windows Licenses help subsidize the cost. If you recall, Fox was not always royalty free. The Distribution Kit was $300.00 or thereabouts. This subsidy argument, IMO, is applicable to .NET as well.
FWIW, I don't think MS could dictate where you
intall the copy of softare your license covers.
Specifcally, if you want to install the DEV
version of VFP or office on Linux, not only can
you do so, I don't think MS could stop you even
if they wanted to. So long as the ratio of 1 lic
per machine exists, MS is not harmed and it
should not care. To try and stop this, IMO,
would amount to MS abusing its Monopoly power.
And that is where the distinction rests in this
case. That said, I don't think the royalty free
runtimes follow in the same vein. I contend that
the consideration given for the use of those run
times is the windows license that will host
those runtimes.
With this in mind, if you want to deploy VFP
apps on Linux, you don't get the benefit of the
Windows subsidy, and therefore, you have to pay
as you go. And FWIW, I think this argument equally applies to .NET.
On one hand, consumers need to be protected
against the abuses of monopoly power. On the
other hand, those protections cannot go so far
as to allow consumers to get something for
nothing.