Repeal 'the Microsoft tax'

Brain Terminal ^ | 1/13/03 | Evan Coyne Maloney

[libber-tarian]

Did you know that the cost of almost every PC sold includes the cost of a Microsoft Windows license, even if the purchaser intends only to use a different operating system on the machine? Or that Microsoft is scheming to have universities force every student to pay for Microsoft software, regardless of whether they actually use it?

Microsoft is able to impose these charges (dubbed "the Microsoft tax") because the company is not subject to genuine competition.

It's time to repeal the Microsoft This article explains how.

The full article can be viewed at http://brain-terminal.com.

[libber-tarian]

The author seems to be conflicted about the need to do something about Microsoft and the undesirability of government intervention in markets

The proposed solution (to have the federal government only purchase software that uses open standards for file formats and data transfer) seems like it might promote greater competition without using government as a blunt instrument

[isthisnickcool]

I've purchased or built PC's that were bare and did not have Windows on them for years. I've certainly purchased numerous servers without any Microsoft product on them.

The author of at the link you gave says: "Now that the Justice Department and Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly are content with the wrist-slapping meted out to Microsoft, few expect any abatement in the company's abuse of its monopoly power." Seems a bit baised? This guy is not objective at all.

Microsoft is not some entity that is bullet-proof. Like any business they can be cut and they can bleed. The "Microsoft Good" or "Microsoft bad" posts here do not seem to have anything to do with conservatism IMHO. But they won't stop because some people seem so fixated on the topic.

[Question_Assumptions]

Government contracts are big money so that sounds like a reasonable idea, so long as the software also has to be available for sale to the public at a similar cost to avoid a "special government edition" of the software.

[Jumper]

While I would normally agree with you that Big-Government, Big O/S, Big-anything is bad... I have to say that I have grown full circle from wishing for an alternative to Microsoft to now being happy with Microsoft Products (as opposed to the UNIX/LINUX stuff) and MS's future. I work in the IT Industry and nobody knocks CISCO and holds Foundary up at the new model for either hardward or the IOS (OS); how could anyone in their right mind wish for the likes of LINUX, UNIX, etc. as an alternative to MS products. Today, there were IAVAs (Information Assurance Vulnerability Alerts issued and most all were Unix, Linux or variations of this alternative to Microsoft. With the next generation of Microsoft products in the XP line for servers and business, Security-"Out-Of-The-BOX" is the essential improvement. UNIX type products have not had the numbers heretofore to be targeted by hackers but with the increased popularity, they are getting more than their share.

Somehow, the idea of thousands of everyday people behind LINUX being better than Microsoft is not comforting.

The only point I will concede is that nobody should have to buy an O/S, but then the warranty service and problem shooting for the Technical Support folks working Help Desks with not have a reference point - so you will forgoe any support if you do not choose a popular O/S.

Thanks, but I'll stay with Microsoft until something better replaces it.

[libber-tarian]

sure, it's biased...it's an opinion piece! an opinion piece with no bias would be pretty dull, don't you think???

[BearCub]

Microsoft is able to impose these charges (dubbed "the Microsoft tax") because the company is not subject to genuine competition

This is not true. There are a bazillion operating system alternatives to microsoft - nobody is forced to buy MS products. You can go to nearly any retailer and buy a 'bare-bones' system with no OS on it.

[isthisnickcool]

sure, it's biased...it's an opinion piece

So, his "opinion" is that there is a "Microsoft Tax". Since it's "actually" factual that you can purchase machines without paying the "tax" then what's posted is somewhat a "fairy tale". I agree with you, most fairy tales are not as dull as things factual.

[libber-tarian]

read the article...it explains how people are essentially forced to buy MS products like Office...

[B Knotts]

Try buying a laptop PC without buying Microsoft Windows.

[libber-tarian]

sorry, Nick...last post was intended for BearCub...

is to possible to get machines free of Windows from Dell? no...

from Gateway? no...

in fact, from most major vendors it is nearly impossible to get a machine WITHOUT windows

sure, you can go to your local hobby shop and buy a Frankenstein machine...but this is not how most people buy their computers

[Utmost Certainty]

Good thing I use a Macintosh.

[Doug Loss]

And often if you can purchase an OS-less machine from a major vendor, the price is the same as the equivalent system with an MS OS installed. That means that either the MS OS is free (not very likely) or you're paying for the MS OS even though you're not receiving it. Hence the term, "Microsoft tax."

[isthisnickcool]

Not 100% true about Dell.

[SauronOfMordor]

And often if you can purchase an OS-less machine from a major vendor, the price is the same as the equivalent system with an MS OS installed.

IIRC, part of the contract with a PC maker (eg, Dell, Gateway, etc), is that MS receives its license fee for every PC shipped, regardless of whether a MS OS is installed on it. This is what the guy is referring to.

Naturally, if you build your own by getting a motherboard, case, etc and putting them together yourself, this does not apply

[Wisconsin]

Well let's see -- part of the antitrust-case was the fact that Microsoft priced its operating systems to computer makers on a "per processor" charge. The manufacturer agreed to pay Microsft a OS fee for every computer produced whether it had a MS OS on it or not. If they did not agree then MS charged them an uncompetitively high price for each copy of the OS (regardless of volume).

So yes there was a "microsoft tax".


Microsoft agreed to stop it in the consent decree.


Now...well actually Microsoft has started putting the per processor charge in their Enterprise agreements (large customer deals) so the monopoly effect is the same -- why switch to a mix of Linux and Microsoft if your Microsoft cost stays the same?

But I don't think that is quite the same as the original "tax".


Those of you who favor hands off from the governemnt should realize that Micorsoft is a government created monopoly. Government copyright and patent policy has as much to do with Microsoft being a monopoly as its own management.

[Brian Allen]

<< Microsoft is able to impose these charges (dubbed "the Microsoft tax") because the company is not subject to genuine competition. >>

What absolute bloody rubbish!

What total BarbAra Streissand!

Anyone can absolutely wipe the floor with the Bill Gates Shower who comes up with a better OS and other product -- and markets it all better than does Mr Gates' Microsoft!

[Or does that not fit the looters' picture of just what IS "genuine competition?"]

[libber-tarian]

notice that it is on "select" machines, and the prices are the same. if you buy it with Linux, YOU STILL HAVE TO PAY FOR WINDOWS!!!

[lucysmom]

Anyone can absolutely wipe the floor with the Bill Gates Shower who comes up with a better OS and other product -- and markets it all better than does Mr Gates' Microsoft!

Is that true? People tend to stay with what they know and where their investment already is. While I may applaud Gates brilliant marketing strategy, I also think that it has limited competition.

[hunter112]

sure, you can go to your local hobby shop and buy a Frankenstein machine...but this is not how most people buy their computers

Good reason to support your local computer repair tech! The same people who don't want to seek out a technically trained person are the ones who want a Windows or Mac OS anyway. If someone cannot look up "computer repair" in the phone book, they won't be able to work with Linux, either.

My community college had "Frankenstein" machines, as you put it, but Gateway made them an offer they couldn't refuse. If a major maker of computers can sell enough machines, they can give quantity discounts that will offset the "Microsoft tax". Besides, any educational institution that doesn't teach its students how to run Microsoft programs and operating systems is doing them a disservice, when they get into jobs, the chances that there will be MS software at those jobs is nearly 100%.

[BearCub]

possible to get machines free of Windows from Dell? no... from Gateway? no... in fact, from most major vendors it is nearly impossible to get a machine WITHOUT windows

Well that is true, BUT, that is a choice the vendors have made. Several years ago in a consent agreement MS agreed to stop forcing manufacturers to buy copies of Windows for every PC they built. But MS is free to give the manufacturers volume discounts - which the PC builders take advantage of by buying copies for all of their PCs.