Peter T. Breuer wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
