Re: no Java in XP Windows

responses in line

----- Original Message -----
From: "James W. Kilgore" <eMail@James-W-Kilgore.com>
To: <MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: no Java in XP Windows


> Now in contract negotiations with PC manufacturers, Microsoft gave them
> only two choices: 1) Pay us $30 for DOS/Win3.1, but you must pay it for
> each and every machine you manufacture, whether you load DOS/Win3.1 on
> it or not, or 2) Pay $60 for each machine that you actually load it on
> just like any other retailer.
>
> What this did was three things, 1) In a hot competitive market, it only
> took one PC manufacturer to sign this $30 deal to gain enough
> competitive edge that all the rest had to follow suit. 2)  It created a
> disincentive for the PC manufacturer to care about any other flavor DOS
> or competitive OS, and finally 3) (this is what I believe violates the
> Sherman Antitrust Act) It forced any consumer to pay for a Microsoft
> product whether they wanted it or not.

This is a valid description of the anti-trust problems surrounding the OS
marketing. But my understanding is that this issue has already been
addressed. I believe that this was addressed in the first consent decree and
this wasn't the part they were accused of violating that brought on the
second set of trials.

Obviously, if such practices were renewed by the OS vendor there would still
be need for government intervention. But I don't think MS wants the fed
running any of its businesses.

Chris Rehm
javadisciple@earthlink.net
If you believe that the best technology wins the
marketplace, you haven't been paying attention.


+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---