Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[David Schwartz]

Peter T. Breuer wrote:

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

>>                            Microsoft was not going to let a business
>> parasitically use Windows to build a business that touted the
>> advantages of competing products.

> 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.

>> (Just as Burger King corporate will not you sell Big
>> Macs in the same store in which you sell Whoppers.)

> 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