NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/os/os2/advocacy/10904

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-24 | 1.9 KB

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10904 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3416
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!batcomputer!msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu!bai
From: [e-mail] (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:22:10 GMT
Lines: 24

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Palmer) writes:

>You are *completely* missing the point. It's not the hardware vendors
>who are adversely affected by MicroSoft's predatory practices, but the
>competitor OS vendors. In effect, when MicroSoft enters into an agreement
>to tie royalty payments to units sold, they are forcing the hardware
>vendor to add the price of DOS/Windows to any other bundled operating
>system. This is an "unfair" practice in re the OS vendor, not the
>hardware vendor. They have effectively increased the cost of all other
>operating systems. That's illegal.

Suppose a company X is marketing OSx for 5 years. Now comes company Y
and develops OSy. Y starts a massive advertising campaign in Magazine. As
a result of this massive campaign X must increase its advertising costs
for OSx. The result is that Y increased the costs of OSx. Should it be
illegal for Y to advertise ? And if it did, should the FTC instruct Y
to split into applications and OS parts ?

>United States Courts                                         Doug Palmer
>Automated Training & Support Center
>7550 IH10 West, Suite 1100                     spatsc![e-mail]

Dov