RE: [TCLUG:1056] Another nifty TSR from

["Schlough, Mark" <Mark.Schlough@nmb.norwest.com>]

Here here!

Now, the real work is to get common folk to understand this.

According to M$:
"We aren't a monopoly(R), there's the Mac(tm), and OS/2(tm). 
[Oh, yeah...that's less than 10% of the market(R)...uh....lemme get back to
you on that one] "



> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Brad DeJong [SMTP:1796@mn3.lawson.lawson.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, September 03, 1998 12:11 PM
> To:	tclug-list@listserv.real-time.com
> Subject:	RE: [TCLUG:1056] Another nifty TSR from 
> 
> Whether MS is checking for "approved" DOS versions or "unapproved" DOS   
> versions is irrelevant.  The legal doctrine in anti-trust (as understood
> 
> by me, a layman) is that "tying" sales of a "monopoly" product (Windows)
> 
> to sales of a non-monopoly product (MS-DOS) is anti-competitive.  It's my
> 
> understanding that this is similar to the case being made by Netscape.   
>  The cost for an OEM to license Windows 95 and Internet Explorer was less
> 
> than the cost of licensing just Windows 95.  Netscape believes that this
> 
> "tying" of unrelated products was a deliberate tactic aimed at shutting   
> them out of the market and driving them out of business.
> 
> Of course it is unreasonable to expect MS to certify Windows with every   
> version of DOS.  However, it should have been possible for Digital   
> Research to certify DR-DOS as being "Windows compatible", but Microsoft   
> wrote Windows to rely so heavily on MS-DOS internals that to avoid the   
> error message in question would have required verbatim copying of   
> Microsoft code which would then have made DR guilty of copyright   
> violations.  (IBM had a license that allowed them to do this for PC-DOS.)
> 
>  Imagine a new user booting up a computer and getting a message that says
> 
> that the software may not work.  The first thing they would do (in a   
> significant number of cases) is call the vendor and complain.  The choice
> 
> was clear, only use MS products or suffer the consequences.
> 
> All of this does put an additional burden on MS.  What most people fail   
> to consider is that legally if you have a monopoly, you have to go to   
> extra lengths to ensure that fair competition is possible.
> 
>  ----------
> From:  Ed Bertsch
> 
>    
> 
> I don'tsee this as being anticompetitive or sabotage, necessarily.   
> Another way
> of viewing the situation is that Microsoft has only certified their
> windows software to "work" with their own DOS and IBM's PC DOS.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tclug-list-unsubscribe@listserv.real-time.com
> For additional commands, e-mail: tclug-list-help@listserv.real-time.com
> Try our website: http://tclug.real-time.com