Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 17th Feb 2006 12:41 UTC, submitted by jayson.knight
Windows "Microsoft recently made a change to the licence agreement saying that a new motherboard is equal to a new computer, hence you need to purchase a new Windows licence. Here is what Microsoft has to say: "An upgrade of the motherboard is considered to result in a 'new personal computer' to which Microsoft OEM operating system software cannot be transferred from another computer. If the motherboard is upgraded or replaced for reasons other than a defect, then a new computer has been created and the license of new operating system software is required." Please note that this does not go for retail copies of Windows, but only for OEM versions.
Permalink for comment 96785
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Monopolist, monopolistic power
by rajan r on Fri 17th Feb 2006 19:05 UTC
rajan r
Member since:
2005-07-27

RenatoRam: "Try changing unilaterally the conditions of a contract in any other business, and see how long you will last" - word it like all EULAs do - quite some time, actually. There's nothing illegal in placing in the contract a provision allowing a party to change the contract - even without their consent! Why don't other businesses do that? Different things they're selling; most businesses sell tangible goods and services, software corps sell licenses.

Celerate: "Gotta love companies who engineer everything so they can screw you over, when does MS change the license to something like..."

And Microsoft would notice that most of their enterprise clients finding switching to Linux cheaper than sticking with Microsoft (nobody is holding a gun to people forcing them to use Windows - it is just cheaper and more convinient to do so; licenses may be more expensive, but support, training, application support, etc. is cheaper most of the time). Notice whenever Microsoft changes the wording of the EULA, they prompt you to accept or decline.

rcsteiner: "Apple Mac OS X was originally developed in isolation on a completely different hardware platform."

Rhapsody was actually initially developed on x86; PPC Macs for the most part use the same hardware as x86s with different firmware and software. Judge Jackson just arbitrarily separated Apple into a different market, though not even Apple themselve consider it a different and separate market.

"That fact protected it from Microsoft's major attacks (preloads and exclusive deals with hardware makers), and enabled it to survive to the present day."

And other companies can't do this because...? Apple survived, but they very well could thrive if they altered their business plan early in the game. They wanted to sell Macs, not software and they reap their reward: >5% market shares. But Apple's shift to Intel cuts Judge Jackson's reasoning on this point - that Apple is in a distinct market because they are using a different processor type.

"OS/2 was developed on x86 by what was then the largest software company in the world (IBM), but not even IBM could sustain its presence in the market."

That was because how IBM treated other OEMs. Microsoft offered IBM's competitors a sweeter deal to OS/2, Microsoft won. Most of the compensation Microsoft made to IBM was because they ditch their contractual matrimony with IBM - think of it as a divorce. If IBM weren't shortsighted on how they deal with clones, they would be minting billions.

"Linux and BSD were mainly developed competely outside of the commercial software marketplace. As noncommercial software development, they are largely immune from the effects of market forces."

Red Hat is a profitable commercial entity, as with Novell, Mandriva, etc. Minus off the contribution of commercially-sponsored code in most open source projects vital to most Linux distributions, including Linux kernel itself, you wouldn't be left with much.

How is it that Red Hat survives and thrives till this day even though it is going after Windows' core and most profitable sector: the enterprise? Competition's competition - though matter how successful or effective they are.

Get a Life: Apt nick, ought to follow it yourself sometimes. There is a vast difference between "monopoly" and "monopolistic power". The prior means single seller (by comparison, monopsony means single buyer). The latter means it is seen to have market powers akin to a monopoly - and it is defined by competition law.

And if you actually took time to read the actual Acts you would see their definitions of what constitutes monopolistic powers is extremely vague - a judge with no commercial experience, particularly in this particular market, is required to make almost purely personal judgements rather than applying interpretted law (Microsoft is the first software-related antitrust case, most precedents don't apply).

Microsoft controls no market - the law only think it does. Point to case: Internet Explorer. Its market share has dropped significantly to the high 80's - yet according to the decision, Microsoft illegally expend their monopolistic powers to a new market. Afterall, doesn't Dell ship certain computers with FreeDOS and Linux instead?

I'm hope you are matured enough to consider that 1) the American legal system, especially when it comes to commercial law, isn't a shining example, and that the entire EU system itself isn't all that much better, 2) what the law says isn't what's right and most importantly, 3) how the law can be interpreted can vary *greatly*.

Moulinneuf: You can buy desktop computers without Windows preinstalled. Take Apple for one, a very prominent example.

Reply Score: 1