Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[Roedy Green]

Well shit, how surprising that they wouldn't want to do business with
you if you broke your agreements with them.

You could have a more productive debate with a talking coke machine
than you.

 

[David Schwartz]

Well, it should have, because that's what manufacturers of operating
systems, washing machines, and so on, are supposed to do. And so says
the legal system. Attempting to subvert market economics like that is
illegal.

Actually, there are washing machines that are only available in
particular stores. I believe Kenmore washing machines, for example, are only
available wholesale as part of a franchise deal. I don't know why you think
that's an attempt to subvert market economics, it's actually just a normal
part of the way the market works.

They're not obliged to. There is no comparison. Not even the same kind
of business in the abstract. Try :- Cow Meat Inc. will see that no
supplier will ever sell you cow meat again if you also sell vegetables
in your totally independent restaurant.

So you are saying Microsoft wouldn't sell Windows wholesale to business
A if totally independent business B wouldn't pay them a per-system-sold
royalty? That makes no sense.

The comparison is perfect. Microsoft made Windows available wholesale
for resale only as part of a franchise-style agreement. This is a completely
typical thing to do. (Though I don't think it's typical for operating
systems, I'd be very surprised if it hadn't been done with an operating
system before. Sun seems to have similar restrictions now, in fact.)

DS

 

[David Schwartz]

David Schwartz wrote:

Rather odd comparison don't you think ?

No, it's dead on.

A better comparison would be if Burger King purchases the fries from a
factory that says that Burger King has to give out a pack of fries
with all meals, regardless of the type of meal, or they are going to
raise the price. In other words, you'll be forced to take a pack of
fries with your ice cream, salad or what not. Considering that
McDonalds have been selling meals with "potato-boats" (don't know the
correct english term for it, carved potato pieces fried), they'd have
to give you a pack of fries with your meal regardless, even if you
want to replace the fries with "potato-boats".

The reason this is a much worse comparison is that the fries don't
determine the nature, to the consumer, of the meal. On the other hand, there
is a sense in which all PCs running, say Windows 98, are alike to the
consumer. That is, what Microsoft provided is what put the product in its
class to the consumer, and to the typical consumer, the meal is a unit.

Also, in this case Burger King "won't sell you" is not the same as
"can't sell you", which seems to be the case with this whole Microsoft
discussion. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be able to easily buy a
computer from Microsoft with OS/2 installed or vice versa either and
I'm not sure they would be obliged to do so either. However,
controlling what an independant outlet is doing, that's different.

I'm talking about Burger King corporate, the wholesale distributor and
franchise licensor. They control what any entity that wants to sell their
branded products can do, and do so very strictly.

The term "independent outlet" is hiding the entire point. Microsoft has
no more obligation to sell Windows through independent outlets than Burger
Kind corporate has an obligation to sell Whoppers through indepedent
outlets, which is none at all. Microsoft elected only to allow Windows to be
purchased wholesale through a franchisee like arrangement, so you were no
longer a fully independent outlet.

I think the history shows that Microsoft opted for a franchisee-type
arrangement for much the same reason Burger King does. They want their
company name to have value and bring in customers. To do this, they have to
prevent their company name from being associated with products that don't
provide the experience they want associated with their name and they have to
prevent companies that draw based on the popularity of Windows but then
switch people to other products.

Because Burger King corporate doesn't want a person to see the golden
arches, walk in, and get a crappy burger or be told that a competing burger
is cheaper and better, they only allow their branded products to be sold at
any business that can draw using their name and products. Microsoft, for
much the same reasons, resticted people's ability to modify Windows or sell
both Windows and competing products.

DS

 

[Peter T. Breuer]

Peter T. Breuer wrote:

Actually, there are washing machines that are only available in
particular stores. I believe Kenmore washing machines, for example, are only
available wholesale as part of a franchise deal.

Good for them - I guess nobody else would want them (I certainly
wouldn't want something which hadn't been subjected to the test of a
competetive market)!

In case you hadn't noticed, there are also JAMs and TINNED CUCUMBERs
which are only available in certain stores! It's called an "own brand",
and they are normally cheaper than branded equivalents, not having paid
for the advertising or in some cases actually using cheaper and generic
products.

That's UP TO THE FRIGGING STORE (in contrast to the MS situation). The store
doesn't have to tell its supplier to make its product also availabel to
other stores (but it probably will, under a differnt label - all these
things come from the same canneries). It's not forced on them sellerby
the manufacturer. And attempts by manufacturers (notably sports shoe
brands) to dictate which shops may sell their brands (in order that they
may control the pricing) have been rebuffed by the courts as well.

I don't know why you think
that's an attempt to subvert market economics,

Because "it is".

it's actually just a normal
part of the way the market works.

No it isn't.

I think I'll just plonk you. Absurd and outlandish statements like
that put you beyond the pale. The law has spoken on the matter - the
courts have judged, and "that is illegal" and "that is a monopoly"
and "that is an illegal trade practice" are its judgments.




Peter

 

[David Schwartz]

No, that finding would have been contradictory to the facts at hand.

How would it have been contradictory to the facts at hand to find that
OSX competes with Windows?

Nice try, but those other OS's did not have enough market share to
prevent the finding of monopoly under the law.

That's not what happened. With OSX, for example, the court decided that
OSX didn't compete with Windows and therefore the market share of OSX was
not even relevent. OSX could have sold twice as many units as Windows and
under the court's reasoning, Microsoft would still have been a monopoly.

Who is paying you to post such nonsense?

That's basically slander.

If the trial court
determines a fact and it's upheld on appeal, it's an established legal
fact regardless of whether you or Microsoft likes it.

Suppose hypothetically an issue of fact in a case is razor thin, as
close as it can possibly be. The trial court judge says, "This is as close
as something can possibly be. A decision of X is basically just as well
supported as Y. Nevertheless, I will find X". (Assume the court must find X
or Y and they are contradictory.) The appeals court says that either X or Y
would be a reasonable finding for the trial court to make since they were
essentially equally supported, so the decision is upheld. Does this make X
an "established legal fact" in your mind?

The trial court had several possible decisions about what the scope of
the market was to be for purposes of determining what share of the market
Microsoft had. Obviously, "software" was too large a scope and would result
in the conclusion that Microsoft has some miniscule percentage of the
market. "Operating systems that can run WIN32 software natively" was too
small a scope, and would result in the conclusion that Microsoft had
basically 100% of the market. However, the choice of the place in-between
was critical.

In fact, by the court's definition of the market, Apple is a monopolist
with OSX. And what are Apple's rules for obtaining OSX wholesale?

DS

 

[Roedy Green]

Well shit, how surprising that they wouldn't want to do business with
you if you broke your agreements with them.

I am going to summarise this then drop out. My blood pressure is at a
boil.

I was a computer retailer. We built custom computers. I had 8 people
working for me. This was in the time prior to Win95 when IBM had a
clearly technically superior solution with OS/2 to MS's Windows 3.1

I had no contract of any kind with MS. I never bought anything from
them directly. I was far too small a fish. I bought the components
including software through dozens of wholesale suppliers.

MS threatened to put any retailer out of business who would not
co-operate with them in extorting money from people who had no use for
MS Windows who explicitly for various reasons did not want to buy MS
windows.

To me that is no different from a popsicle manufacturer demanding I
sell $200 popsicles with every machine I sold. The machines needed MS
Windows no more than they needed a popsicle.

The particular way MS threatened to put me out of business was by
threatening to arm twist all wholesalers to refuse to sell MS product
to me, which any retailer needed to survive in those days.

It was obviously quasi legal or the threats would have had paper to
back them up so I could go to court now to sue the fuckers.

 

[David Schwartz]

You stupid ****! How many times do I have to tell you.

There was NO contract. Just a THREAT to make me do what they wanted,
to go along with their extortion racket.

Getting information from you is like pulling teeth. This threat was to
do what they wanted or else .. WHAT?

DS

 

[David Schwartz]

I am going to summarise this then drop out. My blood pressure is at a
boil.

I was a computer retailer. We built custom computers. I had 8 people
working for me. This was in the time prior to Win95 when IBM had a
clearly technically superior solution with OS/2 to MS's Windows 3.1

I had no contract of any kind with MS. I never bought anything from
them directly. I was far too small a fish. I bought the components
including software through dozens of wholesale suppliers.

MS threatened to put any retailer out of business who would not
co-operate with them in extorting money from people who had no use for
MS Windows who explicitly for various reasons did not want to buy MS
windows.

No, MS decided only to sell Windows to essentially Windows-only shops.

To me that is no different from a popsicle manufacturer demanding I
sell $200 popsicles with every machine I sold. The machines needed MS
Windows no more than they needed a popsicle.

You could have complied with their requests by selling computers only
with Windows installed. That is, by only selling Windows PCs. All Microsoft
was saying was "sell only our products or don't sell our products". This is
a perfectly, normal typical franchise arrangement.

You can't sell Whoppers and also sell any competing burgers that aren't
Burger King branded.

The particular way MS threatened to put me out of business was by
threatening to arm twist all wholesalers to refuse to sell MS product
to me, which any retailer needed to survive in those days.

Right, I get that. You owed your entire business to Microsoft. Without
their products, you would have had nothing, by your own admission. The way
you repay them is by trying to screw them -- attract people who come in only
because you offer Windows and then say "here's an OS that's better and
cheaper".

It was obviously quasi legal or the threats would have had paper to
back them up so I could go to court now to sue the fuckers.

It's perfectly legal and normal (for non-monopoly products). What do you
have to agree to in order to purchase OSX wholesale? What do you have to
agree to in order to purchase Solaris wholesale?

Honestly, I don't understand why you're so worked up and ballistic about
a perfectly typical franchisee/authorized reseller agreement.

Microsoft could have refused to sell you Windows wholesale completely.
That would have meant no business for you at all. In exchange for making
your business possible, all they ask is you don't steer the customers you
have only because of them to their competitors.

DS

 

[Iain King]

Tell me, can you buy a new car without seats? Guess what, you have to
buy those seats whether you want them or not.

Try to start a business selling competing seats for a new car. Your
seats may be cheaper, better, but how can you possibly compete when people
have to pay for factory car seats whether they want them or not?

The real reason PCs were not available without Windows was because not
enough people wanted them that way to justify setting up a business to
provide them that way, and Microsoft was not going to let a business
parasitically use Windows to build a business that touted the advantages of
competing products. (Just as Burger King corporate will not you sell Big
Macs in the same store in which you sell Whoppers.)

DS

Don't you see how your metaphor doesn't work? It would only be fitting
if Microsoft OWNED the outlet. Places which sell Whoppers are Burger
King franchises, so of course they aren't going to sell Big Mac's. PC
hardware stores do not belong to microsoft. There just isn't any
correlation.

Iain

 

[David Schwartz]

That's UP TO THE FRIGGING STORE (in contrast to the MS situation).

No, it's not up to the store. In all the cases I mentioned, it's the
manufacturer of the product that imposes the restrictions and the
manufacturer of the product is not the store owner.

Because "it is".

Then every franchise on the planet and every company that sells
wholesale only to "authorized resellers" and has non-compete in their
authorization terms, is subverting the market.

No it isn't.

Yes, it is.

I think I'll just plonk you. Absurd and outlandish statements like
that put you beyond the pale. The law has spoken on the matter - the
courts have judged, and "that is illegal" and "that is a monopoly"
and "that is an illegal trade practice" are its judgments.

I defy you to find any court that has ruled this practice illegal for a
company that does not have a monopoly. Because if they did, I'm going after
Doctor's Associates and Kenmore.

What do you have to agree to in order to get OSX wholesale for resale?
What about Solaris?

DS

 

[David Schwartz]

Don't you see how your metaphor doesn't work?
No.

It would only be
fitting if Microsoft OWNED the outlet.
Huh?

Places which sell Whoppers
are Burger King franchises, so of course they aren't going to sell
Big Mac's.

Right. The Burger King corporate franchising agent only sells Whoppers
wholesale to franchisees, and to be a franchisee you must agree not to sell
competing products.

PC hardware stores do not belong to microsoft.

91% of Burger King restaurants are independently owned and operated.
Burger King doesn't own the stores either.

There
just isn't any correlation.

Huh?

DS

 

[Iain King]

Right, I get that. You owed your entire business to Microsoft. Without
their products, you would have had nothing, by your own admission. The way
you repay them is by trying to screw them -- attract people who come in only
because you offer Windows and then say "here's an OS that's better and
cheaper".

Oh right. You're actually just a troll. Oh well.

*plonk*

Iain

 

[David Schwartz]

Oh right. You're actually just a troll. Oh well.

*plonk*

I see, he presents the strongest possible anti-Microsoft argument
(including analogizing Microsoft to people who *KILL* people) and that's
fine with you. I present the strongest possible pro-Microsoft argument, and
I must be a troll. Right ... If you think I'm a troll, why don't you try
googling for all my posts on USENET.

DS

 

[Roedy Green]

Right I understand that. You could have complied simply by only selling
computers with Windows preinstalled. In other words, you could have treated
this the same as a demand for franchise or exclusivity if you had wanted to.

It is obvious to everyone WHY MS did this, to maintain monopoly. But
ignore motive for a while and see what they actually did and exactly
how they intended to carry out he threat of destroying my business.
What they did is clearly criminal. The hard part is proving it. Like
any smart criminal who makes a threat, MS left no paper trail..

1. it was a threat to destroy a business -- e.g vandalise tens of
thousands of dollars of property. For all practical purpose they
threatened to steal my business. It would be roughly the same dollar
value as threatening to burn down a large house.

2. it was a threat to force me to commit a criminal act -- namely
extract money from people and hand it to Microsoft and give those
people nothing of value in return. That in principle is no different
from demanding I go out an night and rob people and give MS the
proceeds. The selected victims were those who expressed a contempt
for MS products by refusing to buy or even have any need for them.

3. What MS did was theft, namely taking money from people and giving
them nothing of value in return against their will.

What if MS had simply made the threat without being specific about how
they were going to carry it off? Would you consider MS so innocent
then?

 

[David Schwartz]

1. it was a threat to destroy a business -- e.g vandalise tens of
thousands of dollars of property. For all practical purpose they
threatened to steal my business. It would be roughly the same dollar
value as threatening to burn down a large house.

No, it was a threat to stop providing you with a business by allowing
you to resell their products.

2. it was a threat to force me to commit a criminal act -- namely
extract money from people and hand it to Microsoft and give those
people nothing of value in return. That in principle is no different
from demanding I go out an night and rob people and give MS the
proceeds. The selected victims were those who expressed a contempt
for MS products by refusing to buy or even have any need for them.

If you didn't think Windows was worth paying for, don't sell it. An
wholesale agreement that prohibits you from selling competing products is
not at all unusual.

3. What MS did was theft, namely taking money from people and giving
them nothing of value in return against their will.

Then don't agree to it. All you had to do was say no. All you would have
lost was the ability to do business *with* *Microsoft*.

What if MS had simply made the threat without being specific about how
they were going to carry it off? Would you consider MS so innocent
then?

If it could have been in any way taken as a threat to use force, lie to
others about your company, file a lawsuit knowing it had no merit, or
anything of the like, then I would not consider MS innocent at all. To my
mind, that is where the line is drawn.

But in this case, all it seems that Microsoft threatened to do was to
prohibit you from doing business with them. And all they wanted in exchange
was more of what being able to sell their products was actually worth to
you.

The point here is that Microsoft was offering you something of
tremendous value to you. And they, in return, asked for a lot of money from
you. It's really this simple -- is the money they want from you more or less
than the value? If yes, you have no right to complain. If no, why ever did
you agree?

DS

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lasse_V=E5gs=E6ther_Karlsen?=]

Iain King wrote:




Huh?

I would think that if I set up a shop and wanted to have the word
"Microsoft" as part of the shop name, there would be some rules
dictating what products I could and could not sell, yes. Wether those
rules are set forth in a law somewhere or Microsoft set them forth
themselves, I would find it hard to believe that the law would prohibit
them from doing so.

Otherwise I could set up a shop, call it "Microsoft Porsgrunn" and sell
machines with only Linux installed.

I think Microsoft would be allowed to say "No, you can't do that".

 

[David Schwartz]

Paul Rubin wrote:

I just found this article: http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=88

I don't agree with all of it, and it contains a few minor technical
errors. But it does sum up most of my view on this particular aspect of the
topic.

DS

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lasse_V=E5gs=E6ther_Karlsen?=]

It is obvious to everyone WHY MS did this, to maintain monopoly. But
ignore motive for a while and see what they actually did and exactly
how they intended to carry out he threat of destroying my business.
What they did is clearly criminal. The hard part is proving it. Like
any smart criminal who makes a threat, MS left no paper trail..

2. it was a threat to force me to commit a criminal act -- namely
extract money from people and hand it to Microsoft and give those

What, specifically, is the criminal act of which you speak?

 

[David Schwartz]

I would think that if I set up a shop and wanted to have the word
"Microsoft" as part of the shop name, there would be some rules
dictating what products I could and could not sell, yes. Wether those
rules are set forth in a law somewhere or Microsoft set them forth
themselves, I would find it hard to believe that the law would
prohibit them from doing so.

Otherwise I could set up a shop, call it "Microsoft Porsgrunn" and
sell machines with only Linux installed.

I think Microsoft would be allowed to say "No, you can't do that".

Burger King won't let you sell Whoppers or buy their burger patties
wholesale no matter what you want to call your store unless you take the
whole franchise deal. It's an all-or-nothing package. With very few limits,
companies do get to choose how their products are branded, marketed, and
sold.

DS

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lasse_V=E5gs=E6ther_Karlsen?=]

Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen wrote:




Burger King won't let you sell Whoppers or buy their burger patties
wholesale no matter what you want to call your store unless you take the
whole franchise deal. It's an all-or-nothing package. With very few limits,
companies do get to choose how their products are branded, marketed, and
sold.

Yes, and that's not what Microsoft has ever done. There have always been
lots of shops selling Microsoft merchandise without being a Microsoft
franchise in the sense Burger King shops are.

That's why I still say your comparison is a bad one.