NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/os/os2/advocacy/10994

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-28 | 3.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!dptspd!ephsa!p4atsc!palmer
From: [e-mail] (Doug Palmer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Summary: MicroSoft dumping DOS?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Dec 92 15:14:30 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: spatsc![e-mail]
Distribution: na
Organization: United States Courts (pcatsc)
Lines: 62

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joe Discar) 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.
>
>Doug, I think you're missing the point (although the post wasn't addressed
>to me, I gotta jump in).  The other OS vendors (for example, Novell) could
>quite readily offer their own incentive--even one more attractive, such
>as NOT requiring a license for every computer.  Microsoft cannot (and
>does not) make slaves of the vendor; the vendor at any time can simply say
>"to heck with you" and NOT bundle DOS with every system (but would then
>have to pay a higher price for each package of DOS he _does_ sell).

Were other OS vendors to make similar agreements, they would be similarly
illegal. They will not (as far as I know none have the resources) be able
to make such agreements non-binding, nor more attractive -- so the point
is rather moot. "Enslaving" the vendor isn't the problem -- they are
probably guilty of collusion. As far as the FTC is concerned, these sorts
of cases tend to be targeted at deeper pockets as well as at those who
instigate collusion by dumping their product.

>The only thing I could think of slapping MS for is "dumping" their software.
>That is, Microsoft is selling their software for less than it costs to
>develop, maintain, and ship it.  And I would garner that this is the real
>root of the FTC investigation.

The pricing they offer will be a key factor in any investigation --
especially, as you point out, when dumping is evident.

>Microsoft, because of the close ties
>between the Systems and Applications divisions, could readily "give away"
>Windows knowing that they'll most likely make up for the loss in the
>sales of, say, Word for Windows... this is something that Novell,
>IBM, et. al. *cannot* compete against.

My point above.

>Thus far, my own personal feeling is that THAT is what's wrong with
>Microsoft's practice.  There is NOTHING wrong with a vendor bundling
>DOS+Windows with each system... there is NOTHING wrong with Microsoft
>having an agreement that coerces the vendor in bundling... what IS
>wrong is the PRICE that Microsoft offers for such bundling; it is a
>price that other OS vendors cannot hope to match.

I agree that there is nothing wrong, in principle, with vendor bundling
of DOS with or without Windows. What I would disagree with is the
practice of offering substancial discounts for exclusive contracts which
are, in fact, predatory in re other OS vendors.

>There I said it.  Flames to /dev/nul.

Who, me?  Flame?  Nahhh....  :)
--

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