home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!bnr.co.uk!uknet!mcsun!sunic!aun.uninett.no!nuug!ifi.uio.no!nntp.uio.no!olavt
- From: olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund)
- Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
- Subject: Re: ftc and ms
- Message-ID: <OLAVT.92Dec22114846@ulrik.uio.no>
- Date: 22 Dec 92 10:48:46 GMT
- References: <1992Dec21.154910.6846@kth.se> <1992Dec21.164545.28198@tc.cornell.edu>
- <Bzn3M2.IvJ@csfb1.fir.fbc.com> <1992Dec22.045145.15784@tc.cornell.edu>
- Sender: news@ulrik.uio.no (Mr News)
- Organization: University of Oslo, Norway
- Lines: 24
- In-Reply-To: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu's message of Tue, 22 Dec 1992 04:51:45 GMT
- Nntp-Posting-Host: ulrik
-
- I think the point have been missed somewhere in this thread.
-
- If MS offer PC-makers DOS and Windows at a reasonable price for
- bundling, that is fair enough. But if that deal restrict the PC-makers
- choice of other OSs, then it is not fair. If the PC-makers have to pay
- royalty to MS for DOS and Win for every PC sold, no matter if it ships
- with DOS/Win or not, that is unfair. And it is even worse if the deal
- says that DOS/Win shall be included on every PC, even if the customer
- do not want it.
-
- The OS-vendors should be free to make a bundling offer to all
- PC-makers, but not include clauses that excludes the PC-makers to make
- bundling deals with other OS-vendors.
-
- If a clone maker says that their production line is set up in a way
- that makes it more expensive to deliver a system with a blank disk
- than with the default OS, it is fair enough. But if the reason is that
- MS does not allow them to deliver that way, or charge royalty even if
- the default OS is not delivered, then it is unfair competition.
-
- Olav Torvund
- University of Oslo
- Norway
- Olavt@jus.uio.no
-