Microsoft "software choice" fraud?

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: IcemanJer

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
Again, MS is changing THEIR PRODUCT to function how THEY SEE FIT. Don't like it? Bye bye.

And just so happens that what Microsoft does is considered monopolistic behaviour, like we've said above. You can't have licensing policies that says a company can ONLY use your product or else you won't give them a license at all.

Why!? If you sign it, you agree to it, right? Why can't the government keep their goddamn nose out of everything and stop dictating how businesses detail their user agreements?

nik

 

[Cyberian]

Originally posted by: CptObvious
All you PRO-MS idiots do realise they broke NUMEROUS laws to get where they are today? Damn weak minded Lemmings

This fact seems to be conveniently forgotten by many.
Has anyone actually read the DOJ decision?

 

[Wallydraigle]

And just so happens that what Microsoft does is considered monopolistic behaviour, like we've said above. You can't have licensing policies that says a company can ONLY use your product or else you won't give them a license at all.

Isn't that what car franchises do? I've never seen a dealership selling both new Fords, and new Chevys, or some other competing brand. Used cars, sure, they get them in trades, but they stick to their brand when selling new cars, because they get them from the company.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: nord1899

Originally posted by: lirion

Originally posted by: IcemanJer

Originally posted by: lirion
I think it's just as alarming that if I go with McDonald's I can only get Bigmacs, and other McDonald's food. I mean, if I'm hungry, that doesn't mean that I'm hungry for McDonald's. McDonald's should offer Whoppers, and Taco Supremes, and whatnot as well. I want choice. Also, just because I order a Bigmac, doesn't mean that I should have to live with it the way they make it. If I want a Whopper patty on my Bigmac, they should make it that way for me. If I want Special Sauce on my Taco Supreme, that should be my choice.

Not quite the same. You have a McDonald's right next door to Burger King, right next door to TacoBell, for example. This isn't true with Microsoft.

Nope. Until a year or two ago in my hometown there was a McDonald's, and nothing else. The next closest fastfood place was a half hour's drive away. I don't have a car. If I wanted fastfood, it was McDonald's, or nothing at all. It's exactly the same.

Its not exactly the same.

If McDonalds was preventing another fast food chain from opening a branch in your town, then it would be the same as MS preventing Dell from selling systems with Linux.
If McDonalds was preventing you from eating food from another fast food chain, then it would be the same as MS preventing Linux from working with Windows via Samba.

No, that's McD's preventing another fast food chain from selling anything but McD's food and McD's preventing your digestive tract from digesting food sold from the other fast food chains.
But I don't think that MS is doing anything wrong with their own products.

Can the government arrest you for cutting your own finger off or for not eating certain foods or for not wearing certain clothes? Fusk no.

nik

 

[IcemanJer]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
My understanding of a Monopoly says that one company has complete control over a market. Is that where I'm missing something? Is the law different??

Sort of, but not quite. That is the most basic definition of a monopoly, but there's also the business behaviour that says I am a monopolist even if I am not the *only* company in an industry. And having licensing policies that says you can only sell my product because I say so, and if you don't listen to me I'm going to deny you support, in which case you won't make any profit and are forced to fold. This practice weed out companies that wouldn't listen to me, and left with companies that agrees with my policies. That, in essence, is monopolistic behaviour, because now I have complete control over a market.

 

[IcemanJer]

Originally posted by: lirion
Okay, sure, that is the same. I didn't know you only have Microsoft. I just meant that in the computer industry, there are many players, like at our local shopping plaza there's Mac and across the street is Unix, and they have to compete with each other for customers (but then again I don't like either so I just go to FreeBSD one block down )

You don't have a McDonald's security guard that says if you even thing about going to Burger King next door, we won't ever let you back into McDonald's. And if you do try to come back in, we will charge you astronomical amount of money for a BigMac that will clean out your bank account.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
Again, MS is changing THEIR PRODUCT to function how THEY SEE FIT. Don't like it? Bye bye.

nik
P.S. Sorry it's taking me so long. I have to clear my cache / cookies every time it times out with my damn work proxies. I never know if it's going to go through or not.

What they did with DR-DOS was anti-competetive, unethical and just flat-out wrong. Caldera took them to court for that case, and MS settled it with them (I guess they knew that they would lose the case)

You really see no problem with company that has a monopoly killing it's potential customers? If DR-DOS had died because it was a sucky product, I wouldn't have had any problems. But the fact was that it was superior to MS-DOS (it had superior memory-manager, Stacker-like features, memory-optimizer (so you could squeeze all base memory that you could get).... All that LONG before MS-DOS had 'em! It was whipping MS-DOS fair 'n square. MS didn't like it, so they changed their new flagship product in such way that it wouldn't work on DR-DOS. There was no reason for it not to work, DR-DOS was 100% MS-DOS compatible. MS just made sure that it would not run on DR-DOS.

 

[Wallydraigle]

Its not exactly the same.

If McDonalds was preventing another fast food chain from opening a branch in your town, then it would be the same as MS preventing Dell from selling systems with Linux.
If McDonalds was preventing you from eating food from another fast food chain, then it would be the same as MS preventing Linux from working with Windows via Samba.

No, Microsoft prohibiting Dell from selling non Microsoft products would be like McDonald's preventing a franchise from selling other food besides MCDonald's. Or a Ford dealership from selling Chevys on the same lot.

 

[nord1899]

Originally posted by: lirion

And just so happens that what Microsoft does is considered monopolistic behaviour, like we've said above. You can't have licensing policies that says a company can ONLY use your product or else you won't give them a license at all.

Isn't that what car franchises do? I've never seen a dealership selling both new Fords, and new Chevys, or some other competing brand. Used cars, sure, they get them in trades, but they stick to their brand when selling new cars, because they get them from the company.

Why do people always insist on comparing the software industry (intellectual property oriented) to some other industry like cars or fast food (physical property oriented)?

The two are so different that you can't compare them.

 

[IcemanJer]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
Why!? If you sign it, you agree to it, right? Why can't the government keep their goddamn nose out of everything and stop dictating how businesses detail their user agreements?

because the agreement has changed since you signed it.

 

[Wallydraigle]

What they did with DR-DOS was anti-competetive, unethical and just flat-out wrong. Caldera took them to court for that case, and MS settled it with them (I guess they knew that they would lose the case)

You really see no problem with company that has a monopoly killing it's potential customers? If DR-DOS had died because it was a sucky product, I wouldn't have had any problems. But the fact was that it was superior to MS-DOS (it had superior memory-manager, Stacker-like features, memory-optimizer (so you could squeeze all base memory that you could get).... All that LONG before MS-DOS had 'em! It was whipping MS-DOS fair 'n square. MS didn't like it, so they changed their new flagship product in such way that it wouldn't work on DR-DOS. There was no reason for it not to work, DR-DOS was 100% MS-DOS compatible. MS just made sure that it would not run on DR-DOS.

Would you expect to go out and buy a trasmission for a Kia, stick it in your new Acura, and drive to the mall? Should we sue Acura for not making their vehicles take Kia parts? I mean, they could make it that way.

 

[ElFenix]

the ability to extract different payments from different customers, which MS has done often, is a classic monopoly trait.

 

[Wallydraigle]

Originally posted by: nord1899

Originally posted by: lirion

And just so happens that what Microsoft does is considered monopolistic behaviour, like we've said above. You can't have licensing policies that says a company can ONLY use your product or else you won't give them a license at all.

Isn't that what car franchises do? I've never seen a dealership selling both new Fords, and new Chevys, or some other competing brand. Used cars, sure, they get them in trades, but they stick to their brand when selling new cars, because they get them from the company.

Why do people always insist on comparing the software industry (intellectual property oriented) to some other industry like cars or fast food (physical property oriented)?

The two are so different that you can't compare them.

Why? Because it makes MS look less evil?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: lirion

Its not exactly the same.

If McDonalds was preventing another fast food chain from opening a branch in your town, then it would be the same as MS preventing Dell from selling systems with Linux.
If McDonalds was preventing you from eating food from another fast food chain, then it would be the same as MS preventing Linux from working with Windows via Samba.

No, Microsoft prohibiting Dell from selling non Microsoft products would be like McDonald's preventing a franchise from selling other food besides MCDonald's. Or a Ford dealership from selling Chevys on the same lot.

you've never seen ford/chrysler/gm/honda/toyota/nissan/whatnot dealers on the same lot? we have them all over texas...

 

[IcemanJer]

Originally posted by: lirion
Isn't that what car franchises do? I've never seen a dealership selling both new Fords, and new Chevys, or some other competing brand. Used cars, sure, they get them in trades, but they stick to their brand when selling new cars, because they get them from the company.

Sure, but again, you have a Ford dealership here, and half a mile down the road you have a Toyota dealership.
The Ford Comapny wouldn't go to a new dealership that has just opened and says force them to sell Ford vehicles, because the dealership can very well just reject Ford and choose to sell Toyota or go with whatever other car franchise.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: lirion

What they did with DR-DOS was anti-competetive, unethical and just flat-out wrong. Caldera took them to court for that case, and MS settled it with them (I guess they knew that they would lose the case)

You really see no problem with company that has a monopoly killing it's potential customers? If DR-DOS had died because it was a sucky product, I wouldn't have had any problems. But the fact was that it was superior to MS-DOS (it had superior memory-manager, Stacker-like features, memory-optimizer (so you could squeeze all base memory that you could get).... All that LONG before MS-DOS had 'em! It was whipping MS-DOS fair 'n square. MS didn't like it, so they changed their new flagship product in such way that it wouldn't work on DR-DOS. There was no reason for it not to work, DR-DOS was 100% MS-DOS compatible. MS just made sure that it would not run on DR-DOS.

Would you expect to go out and buy a trasmission for a Kia, stick it in your new Acura, and drive to the mall? Should we sue Acura for not making their vehicles take Kia parts? I mean, they could make it that way.

acura doesn't preclude the use of aftermarket parts. theres no giant ominous warning that pops up telling you you could cause you acura to function irregularly or cease functioning at all. ever try to install a non certified driver on win2k or xp?

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
In any case, it's a decision that lays in the hands of others. If Dell doesn't want to do business with MS, they don't have to. Consequences aside, the choice is there and it belongs solely to Dell. My understanding of a Monopoly says that one company has complete control over a market. Is that where I'm missing something? Is the law different??

nik

MS has 90% market-share. If Dell told us tomorrow that they would not sell machines with Windows, they would die within a year. They need to sell those Windows-machines to Joe Sixpack. If MS would just play fairly (read: would not abuse their monopoly), if the products could just compete on their merits, things would be fine in my book. But MS does everything it could to deny consumers the right to choose their OS. You can't get dual-boot machine because MS denies you that right. MS makes it more and more difficult to sell computers with competing OS'es. They can do all that because they have a monopoly and they abuse their monopoly to force OEM's to do their bidding. As to your "no-one is forcing to do business with MS!"-argument.... If there was a telephone-monopoly (like there was with AT&T), was it REALLY realistic to simply decide "I don't like 'em, so I will not use their services", and then proceeded to live your life wirthout telecommunications?

 

[Wallydraigle]

Originally posted by: IcemanJer

Originally posted by: lirion
Isn't that what car franchises do? I've never seen a dealership selling both new Fords, and new Chevys, or some other competing brand. Used cars, sure, they get them in trades, but they stick to their brand when selling new cars, because they get them from the company.

Sure, but again, you have a Ford dealership here, and half a mile down the road you have a Toyota dealership.
The Ford Comapny wouldn't go to a new dealership that has just opened and says force them to sell Ford vehicles, because the dealership can very well just reject Ford and choose to sell Toyota or go with whatever other car franchise.

Exactly. But the franchise would expect to be able to sell both. They can sell brand "A" on Brand A's terms, or go with someone else.


OOPS! I obviously meant they would NOT expect to be able to sell both. My bad

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: IcemanJer

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
Why!? If you sign it, you agree to it, right? Why can't the government keep their goddamn nose out of everything and stop dictating how businesses detail their user agreements?

because the agreement has changed since you signed it.

And, since the user agreement says that they can change it at any time for any reason without notification, that's okay. And, since the agreement says that if you continue to use the products, you're agreeing to the user agreement, that's okay too.

I still fail to see what MS is doing wrong. If you really don't like them, then go elsewhere and let me use them without having to hear people bitch in my ear constantly. Then again, I could always leave AT, never go outside of the house, get rid of my radio and television so I don't have to hear your bitching, but then again, it's my choice and I accept the consequences, not sue your asses for not giving me what I want.

nik

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: lirion

What they did with DR-DOS was anti-competetive, unethical and just flat-out wrong. Caldera took them to court for that case, and MS settled it with them (I guess they knew that they would lose the case)

You really see no problem with company that has a monopoly killing it's potential customers? If DR-DOS had died because it was a sucky product, I wouldn't have had any problems. But the fact was that it was superior to MS-DOS (it had superior memory-manager, Stacker-like features, memory-optimizer (so you could squeeze all base memory that you could get).... All that LONG before MS-DOS had 'em! It was whipping MS-DOS fair 'n square. MS didn't like it, so they changed their new flagship product in such way that it wouldn't work on DR-DOS. There was no reason for it not to work, DR-DOS was 100% MS-DOS compatible. MS just made sure that it would not run on DR-DOS.

Would you expect to go out and buy a trasmission for a Kia, stick it in your new Acura, and drive to the mall? Should we sue Acura for not making their vehicles take Kia parts? I mean, they could make it that way.

Exactly. :frown:

nik

 

[nord1899]

Originally posted by: lirion

Originally posted by: IcemanJer

Originally posted by: lirion
Isn't that what car franchises do? I've never seen a dealership selling both new Fords, and new Chevys, or some other competing brand. Used cars, sure, they get them in trades, but they stick to their brand when selling new cars, because they get them from the company.

Sure, but again, you have a Ford dealership here, and half a mile down the road you have a Toyota dealership.
The Ford Comapny wouldn't go to a new dealership that has just opened and says force them to sell Ford vehicles, because the dealership can very well just reject Ford and choose to sell Toyota or go with whatever other car franchise.

Exactly. But the franchise would expect to be able to sell both. They can sell brand "A" on Brand A's terms, or go with someone else.

Sure, I see that kind of stuff all the time. You see of course the dealerships selling different brands of the same company (Lincoln/Mercury/Ford). But I also see dealers selling completely different brands (BMW, Merc and other high ends). I also see a Ford/Audi dealer just a few minutes from my house. And near where I work, I see a Lexus/Audi dealer.

What is your point here?

 

[Wallydraigle]

acura doesn't preclude the use of aftermarket parts. theres no giant ominous warning that pops up telling you you could cause you acura to function irregularly or cease functioning at all. ever try to install a non certified driver on win2k or xp?

I bet there's an entry in the manual that goes "For best performance, use only blah, blah, blah". There always is

 

[nord1899]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: IcemanJer

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
Why!? If you sign it, you agree to it, right? Why can't the government keep their goddamn nose out of everything and stop dictating how businesses detail their user agreements?

because the agreement has changed since you signed it.

And, since the user agreement says that they can change it at any time for any reason without notification, that's okay. And, since the agreement says that if you continue to use the products, you're agreeing to the user agreement, that's okay too.

I still fail to see what MS is doing wrong. If you really don't like them, then go elsewhere and let me use them without having to hear people bitch in my ear constantly. Then again, I could always leave AT, never go outside of the house, get rid of my radio and television so I don't have to hear your bitching, but then again, it's my choice and I accept the consequences, not sue your asses for not giving me what I want.

nik

And since I can't read the agreement until after I've opened the package (oh yeah, stores don't like open software returns), I'm pretty much stuck with that EULA.

 

[IcemanJer]

Originally posted by: lirion
Exactly. But the franchise would expect to be able to sell both. They can sell brand "A" on Brand A's terms, or go with someone else.

You mean the dealership?
I think the difference here is that, if I own a dealership I can freely choose which car franchise I want to go with and I can still make a very good profit. But if I'm an OEM company like Dell, I can't make a profit unless I choose Microsoft.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
Why!? If you sign it, you agree to it, right? Why can't the government keep their goddamn nose out of everything and stop dictating how businesses detail their user agreements?

nik

What is the other blackmails the other to sign that threaty? Saying things like "You do know that we rule this business? If you don't sign, we will double the price you pay for our licenses. And I think we both know that you need our software". Should government just "keep their goddamn nose out of everything and stop dictating how businesses detail their user agreements?". If one party is clearly breakign the law, government must intervene. And MS has repeteatedly broken the law. They were found guilty in 1995 (if I remember correctly) in antitrust-lawsuit. They got a similar "punishment" as they did this time (a slap in the wrist). Obviously it didn't work. Had it worked, we wouldn't be here again.

Repeat after me: Monopolies are bad.

Nothing good ever comes from monopolies. In order for capitalistic system to really work, one must be able to offer ones products freely, MS does everything they can to stop others from offering their products.