Microsoft to Linux: 'Bring it on'

TalkBack 45 of 128:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

MS Myths...or truths?

"Microsoft does NOT require PC makers (OEMs) to ship PCs with only Windows"

Here's how it works (Judge Jackson wrote it all down if you care to read it).

Microsoft has monopoly power in desktop operating systems - over 90% of new PCs sold have Windows installed. Computer manufacturers are given discounts on the price of Windows if they pay a licence fee to Microsoft for every computer sold. If they don't, the licence fee is increased by 15% to 20%. Given the extremely price conscious nature of the PC industry, that $10 or $15 in licence fee translates into $30 or $40 on the price of the PC - essentially pricing OEM's out of the market. This tactic was sufficient to get IBM to promise to drop OS/2, proof that it's very persuasive.

This type of licencing has been outlawed, however only after it had helped MS secure their monopoly. And the conditions have only changed marginally.

Microsoft also require that the BIOS not be altered, so OEM's can't install a second OS on their Windows PCs. This was the basis of Be's suit against MS(Microsoft settled out of court). The same tactic stops OEMs from selling dual-boot Windows and Linux boxes - if an OEM wants to do that, they have to sell a full retail version of Windows at about 4 times the cost of the pre-installed OEM version.

The cost of selling and supporting two PC lines with different operating systems installed raises the retail price, hence very few OEMs do it. They'd rather sell dual-boot across an entire range, not just the odd Linux box here and there.

So back in the mid-90's, MS did require OEMs to ship only Windows on every PC. They have relaxed that under regulatory constraint, but effectively they still use all their resources to ensure OEM's ship Windows only.

"You also have misread if you believe that MS 'claims a pure client application like a web browser', 'canot be separated from the underlying OS.'"

Your defence here is quite good, you have paraphrased MS quite nicely. And yes, MS bundling IE was not shown to harm consumers sufficiently for the court of appeals to uphold action to stop it. But Microsoft didn't disprove harm either. They paid AOL $750 million plus gave them free use of IE for 7 years to stop a ruling on bundling in the subsequent AOL case.

If MS were so confident on the bundling issue, why did they give AOL such a massive payout?

And Microsoft's defence was that IE was technically an inseparable part of Windows. Not only did they lie to the court on that fact, they had to doctor the demonstration that they purported showed removing IE broke Windows - and were caught out.

That MS integrated IE into Windows is not the issue, it's that integrating the browser does not provide any benefit to consumers and makes it more difficult for any competitor to enter into the browser market. That is the basis of the harm to consumers argument. Unfortunately, the DoJ dropped the ball and didn't pursue it and AOL were paid of (massively).

The EU case is essentially over bundling, yet again. The issue will not go away until MS behave themselves.

Posted by: Fred Fredrickson   Posted on: 04/21/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• The Impact of Virtualization Software on Operating Environments VMware Today's use of virtualization technology allows IT professionals to ... Download Now
• Get top-ranked Novell support for Red Hat at 50% less Novell A simplified IT environment isn't just less complex, it's more reliable. ... Download Now
• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now