Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (3637 mails)

< Previous Next >
RE: [SLE] FW: [SLE] [OT] Legal Issues Type Question-addendum!
  • From: "crrey" <crrey@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 08:15:24 -0500
  • Message-id: <NEBBJLBFILJCDGDAKFKGEELCCDAA.crrey@xxxxxxxx>
What I meant to say was I agree with Ms. Moter in general. However, Mr.
Wilde has a very valid point!

Sorry for the mis-type :/ Curtis Rey

-----Original Message-----
From: crrey [mailto:crrey@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 0804
To: jennifer moter; Fergus Wilde
Cc: suse-linux-e@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [SLE] FW: [SLE] [OT] Legal Issues Type Question


I agree with Ms Moter's response. I an earlier response, one mailed the
night before I tried to point out that alot of what we're seeing here
revolves around Microsofts license agreement and their market practice. One
has to ask why the U.S. Federal government and a slew of U.S. State Attorney
Generals went after M$ with such a vengence. I realize the the current
political climate and the fact that the acitons of the Federal Judge
(Penfield) have resulted in a watered down case against M$. However, the
individual states will still press on and most likely win the fair
percentage of their cases. One to the reasons the M$ found itself in court
was because of practice such as we're discussing. Yes, I know that the
major thrust of the Federal case revolves around anti-competitive practices
and tying IE into the OS as a way of killing the Netscape and other browsers
functionality/performance and then "strong arming" vendors/OEMs with the
license agreement. However, the majority of the individual State cases if
focused on issue that are similar to those discussed here. Such as in
California where a case was ruled for the plaintiffs (the consumer/State)
related to unfair control of consumer choices and violations of the
California business code/fair trade policies.

-----Original Message-----
From: Fergus Wilde [mailto:fwilde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 0739
To: jennifer moter
Cc: suse-linux-e@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [SLE] FW: [SLE] [OT] Legal Issues Type Question



Well and good, but when an international giant is using strongarm tactics to
try to pressurise manufacturers and dealers into refusing customers'
requests
for PCs without an OS (see all the links sent earlier in the discussion),
your 'market forces' fix is not going to work in the way you suggest.

When the market is being deliberately distorted by near monopolies, your
economic analysis needs to come up a level from the 'choose a different Mom
and Pop on Main Street' cure. If major injustices are going to be
prevented,
public discussion is vital and telling people to keep quiet and enjoy the
just and fair operations of the great corporations is naive.

On Thursday 03 May 2001 01:13, you wrote:
> These people's business includes selling software licenses - check the
home
> page.
> Just because you don't agree with someone's business doesn't mean you
> have the right to 'stir up trouble'.
>
> Find a dealer you like.
>
>

--
To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxx
For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@xxxxxxxx
Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the
archives at http://lists.suse.com


--
To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxx
For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@xxxxxxxx
Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the
archives at http://lists.suse.com


< Previous Next >
References