> This is a good article that gets right at the core of how deeply
> entrenched this Monopoly is. Too bad for BeOS but Linux can't expect
> any better fate in the desktop OEM arena unless OEM's find it worthwhile
> to fight the MS license en masse. Will offering dual-boot machines
> provide a new revenue stream from additional sales or reduce cost due to
> competition? Probably not enough to warrant a full-scale attack on
> their MS OEM license. Again, it may come down to consumer complaint or
> the work of organizations like EFF to get any push for legislation that
> would release the vice-grip that the MS OEM license has over a good,
> competitive environment. But don't expect anything from our legislature
> if the courts won't even begin to address the issue. Too bad the
> current legal hassle facing MS became so narrowly focused.
>
> -Robert
I agree its a good article. Its interesting the remarks about David Boies
and his lawyering skills or lack thereof. I'm just finishing a book written
by Vincent Bugliosi where he comments at great length on Boies' performance
before the Supreme Court concerning the election. I won't comment more
since it would cross the line and belong on the slug-politics list.
Jim
> Paul M Foster wrote:
> >
> > Here's a link from another list that I thought very interesting when I
> > read the story.
> >
> > http://www.byte.com/documents/s=1115/byt20010824s0001/
> >
> > The short version is that Microsoft's OEM license, which is confidential
> > and is labeled a "trade secret" prohibits OEMs from shipping dual boot
> > machines. If you're going to ship Windows, there can't be any other boot
> > options for other OSes.
> >
> > Must be nice to be a monopoly.
> >
> > Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:11:50 EDT