Peter T. Breuer wrote:
> 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.
>> I don't know why you think
>> that's an attempt to subvert market economics,
> 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.
>> it's actually just a normal
>> part of the way the market works.
>
> 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
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
