Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[David Schwartz]

Peter T. Breuer wrote:

> In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <davids at webmaster.com> wrote:

>>                             . Microsoft said you can sell Windows
>> and other operating systems, but there will be a charge for every
>> machine you sell without Windows -- if you want to be able to buy
>> Windows wholesale. Someone could comply with this by not selling any
>> other operating systems at all and never pay the fee. Therefore,
>> this is a lesser restriction than saying you can only sell Windows
>> wholesale if you don't sell or offer any competing systems.

> No - you claim that allowing somebody (by contract?) to do Z at a
> penalty is "lesser" than disallowing them from doing Z.  Sorry - both
> are equal in market economics (where the financial imperatve rules).

    Umm, no it's lesser in a strictly logical sense.

> Indeed, no contract can "disallow" somebody from doing Z - you are
> always at liberty to break a contract! (See the RH Enterprise licence
> as an example of a contract that you are at liberty to break by
> copying RHE to more machines at the penalty of losing RH maintenance
> support- I recently had this argument with Rick Moen). The penalty
> for doing so is what is at issue.
>
> So your definitions are anyway without semantic content, and hence the
> argument cannot proceed.

    My argument proceeds exactly the same if they're equal as if they're 
lesser. It is totally not dependent upon how much lesser it is.

> And even if the argument were too proceed, your use of "lesser" would
> fail, because it appears to mean "is a (proper) subset of the ways
> that" without having established what different (i.e. same) means, and
> I'd submit that there is no diffence between the elements you exhibit
> in the setting of market regulation law.

    My argument proceeds the same if they're equivalent. (Did you read it?!)

    DS