On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 23:54, Terry Taylor wrote:
Are you telling us, therefore, that the exam boards are collaborating with Microsoft to shut out the competition? Furthermore, are you telling us that they are all doing this together? That would be a first!
Its arguable that they are. Reasons are its easier for them the exam boards) administratively and for MS it furthers their monopoly.
I go back to my original point - schools/colleges are not forced to offer those courses.
There is considerable pressure from government to do so in the case of GNVQ, VGCSE and GCSE. That is why its better to target these than supplier courses such as Cisco or MCP.
You are saying that it is the effect of the action which is important and obviously one cannot disagree with that, but you add that 'fault doesn't come into it'. If this is the case then there is nobody to target for action.
Fault as in intention. Its the outcome that matters. If the effect of their actions reduces competition its unlawful whatever they argue was their intention.
On the other hand, if we take the usual stance that the effect has to be caused by something, then that something is a result of Boards offering the syllabi, the government agencies passing them, and schools and colleges using them, so they are the groups 'at fault' (meaning they are producing an effect which you say is wrong). Where does Microsoft come into this equation?
Chapter 2.
The whole point is that this is arguable and we would be better spending
the time and effort arguing the case with the OFT than here. All Richard
wants is some evidence to make a case. Ok, the OFT might disagree but
unless we try we don't know and the more credible cases that are put
before them highlighting the problem *with* evidence the better. Some
won't come to anything but some will. They certainly took my complaint
about M$ schools agreement seriously. If people believe outcomes are
anti-competitive and have evidence, its worth putting that to the OFT
and let them decide.
--
ian