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@home.com] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 0804 To: jennifer moter; Fergus Wilde Cc: suse-linux-e@suse.com 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@chethams.org.uk] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 0739 To: jennifer moter Cc: suse-linux-e@suse.com 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@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com 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@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com