Re: keyboard/mouse programming
- From: s_dubrovich@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:55:37 -0800 (PST)
On Nov 28, 5:01 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Robert Redelmeier" <red...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message[snipped]
news:9n73j.27769$Pv2.9035@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
So? Raising your competitors cost of doing business is a
standard American corporation practice.
Rather cynical: RRC (Raising Rivals Costs) is an illegal
anticompetitive business practice (even if hard to prove):
http://ftc.gov/be/RRCGMU.pdf
30 pages... Does it specifically say that's illegal somewhere or just that
they have conducted research into the practice from an anticompetitive
perspective such as by a firm believed to be monopolistic?
The few sections I skimmed seem to indicate that this research is highly
theoretical in nature and different from predatory pricing, monopolistic
practices, and even anticompetitive practices. I.e.,:
Thought you might be interested in:
http://www.maxframe.com/
Re:CALDERA, INC., Plaintiff, vs. MICROSOFT CORP., Defendant.
On second thought, perhaps you've seen it.
But as to RRC...
"
In addition to its improper vaporware and FUD campaigns, Caldera
alleges that Microsoft also forced OEMs away from DR DOS 5.0 by what
plaintiff refers to as the "licensing triple-whammy," which refers to
(1) per processor licenses, (2) minimum commitments subject to
forfeiture, and (3) increased license duration. Per processor
licensing agreements required an OEM to pay Microsoft a royalty on
every machine the OEM shipped regardless whether the machine contained
MS-DOS or a different operating system. This is in contrast to a per
system licensing agreement, which required OEMs to pay a royalty on
only those computers shipped with MS-DOS installed. The use of per
processor agreements is argued by plaintiff to be Microsoft's most
effective single weapon against DR DOS. Plaintiff alleges that DRI had
no realistic chance to license DR DOS to OEMs under a per processor
license with Microsoft. It would make no sense for an OEM to install
DR DOS when it had already paid for MS-DOS on every machine. Microsoft
contends that OEMs were free to depart from the per processor
licensing scheme, and that price differentials between license types
were "relatively minor." However, plaintiff points to the depositions
of several OEM executives who testified that even slight price
differentials between the per processor and per system licenses meant
that only the per processor license was financially viable.
"
Steve
Rod Pemberton
.
- References:
- Re: keyboard/mouse programming
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: keyboard/mouse programming
- Prev by Date: Re: Usage of Assembly
- Previous by thread: Re: keyboard/mouse programming
- Next by thread: Will female robots take plastic?? (A call for kicking female programmers out of computing)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
