Posted on 08/10/2002 10:30:07 AM PDT by HAL9000
Dell No Longer Selling Systems w/o Microsoft OS
Posted by CmdrTaco on Saturday August 10, @01:17PM
from the yer-bringing-me-down-man dept.Some Sys Admin sent in an email that he got from Dell which basically says Microsoft will no longer allow Dell to sell PCs without an operating system. Please note that Microsoft is not a monopoly, and does not use their monopoly power to squish competition in the market place. The message itself is attached below, and is worth a read, especially the last bit.
UPDATES1. Effective 8/26 - New Microsoft contract rules stipulate that we can no longer offer the "NO OS" option to our customers beyond September 1st. As such all customers currently purchasing a "NO OS" option on either OptiPlex, Precison or Latitude for the express purpose of loading a non-MS OS will have the following options:
1. Purchase a Microsoft OS with each OptiPlex, Precision or Latitude system.
2. For OptiPlex and Precision - purchase one of the new "nSeries" products (offered for GX260, WS340 & WS530 - details in the attached FAQ) that are being created to address a different OS support requirement other than a current standard Microsoft OS.
We must have all "No OS" orders shipped out of the factory by September 1st. The "No OS" legend code and SKUs will be I-coded on 8/19 and D-coded on August 26th to ensure shipment of orders prior to September 1st. FYI - this effects all of our competitors as well.
July 1994 — Microsoft in a consent decree agrees to change contracts with PC makers and eliminate some restrictions on other software makers, ending a Justice Department investigation.
This consent decree signed by Microsoft means that Dell only pays Microsoft for the computers that contain Microsoft products. Dell does not have to pay Microsoft for any royalty on any PC that does not contain a Microsoft product. Not only that Microsoft cannot make it a condition of the contract to limit Dell in any such way.
This actually started it all This consent decree is still in effect. However, Microsoft has violated it, goes to court, gets it a$$ whooped, and gets verdicts handed down that yes, M$ is in violation of its own consent decree, the Sherman Act et al.
And now, M$ is back to its own tricks demanding a royalty against the Dell naked PCs for which it has no legal right. (already proven in court).
Microsoft, the Department of Justice and the Consent Decree of 1994 (Note: this is still in effect)
In 1994, Microsoft signed a consent decree with the Department of Justice that provides Microsoft would not enter into any license agreement that:
Microsoft has suggested this defeat was somehow a victory, and was in fact no finding of liability. Attorney General Janet Reno saw things differently, and said so on July 16, 1994:
"Microsoft's unfair contracting practices have denied other U.S. companies a fair chance to compete, deprived consumers of an effective choice among competing PC operating systems, and slowed innovation."
The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, Anne K. Bingaman, expressed a similar sentiment:
"Microsoft is an American success story but there is no excuse for any company to try to cement its success through unlawful means, as Microsoft has done with its contracting practices."
Are we learning yet?
Quoting Janet Reno in an attempt to further your argument will not help you.
All it does is point out your desparation where the facts dont back you up, nor your new partner in Crime, MS Reno.
Seek help.
Is this the best you can do? Obfuscate? Maybe you don't know, but she was the Attorney General at the time. The fact that she is not Attorney General now does not dimish the consent decree signed by Microsoft. You see, the law is one of those things that a court order is a court order regardless of who is in the Whitehouse or DOJ. This is also true for consent degrees.
To re-interate (since I don't think you got the point), in 1994 Ms. Reno was AG. Microsoft signed the consent decree. Its still binding. There was no other AG to quote .. because ... funny thing, Reno was the AG. And, becasue the law is the law and consent decrees are binding .. its still in effect.
Are we learning yet?
I'm sorry - did I understand you to say, sir, that the Soviets are not using Eastern Europe as their own sphere of influence in occupying most of the countries there?
Dream on. The court documents speak for themselves.
I didn't hear about that one. I'd hate to be the one on the trustworthy computing team that had to break the bad news to Bill.
All joking aside, I'm sure the internet activation feature has cut down the pirating by orders of magnitude.
I wonder how effectively the pirated version can receive security patches and updates?... Because without the security patches and updates... well, you know. :-)
Sorry you didn't get my humor. But, in some jokes, there's that element of truth. I built a computer from components and a blank hard disk a week ago, and the only "OS" pre-loaded was the BIOS.
Nice computer. I'll bet you get a lot done with it.
Actually, I did... Set the BIOS to boot from CD-ROM, loaded a linux install CD, and installed Red-Hat Linux 7.3.
BTW, When are you guys over at MS going to give the Apache Web Server a run for its money?
You are very strange. But not unexpected. The argument was that M$'s new attempt at a contract with Dell violates a previous consent decree with the court. The best you can do is obfuscate/distort/insult/deny realty because you've lost the argument. The court records speak for themselves. Your next move is probably to deny the records .. etc. I don't care. The consent decree clearly states that M$ cannot influence what OSs are installed or not on the PCs. Dell is the manufacturer .. Dell offers naked PCs -- remember those points? -- ... It wasn't that long ago a company I did some consulting for bought some naked PCs from Dell and you know something-- M$ didn't get a dime from that transaction because gasp! they were not involved in the sale! And their software wasn't needed.
Read any of this the way you want and point your IE browser with the newly discovered security flaw somewhere else. I get a headache having to think down to your level. M$ shills -- stupid to the core. Give me a Linux shill anyday. A Linux shill is so friggin' irritating, but at least they have a brain in their head and don't simply deny realty to "make a point". Read the court documents (and the consent decree) if you can.
You talk about never seeing a Ford with a GM engine. I have been a Diesel Mechanic for over 20 years. I have worked on anything from M60 Tanks to Bulldozers, Front end loaders, Road Graders, Rock Drills, to Cars, Pickups, and 19 wheelers. I have seen LOTS of Fords with GM motors. Not only GM, but Catapillar, and Cummins Motors. I used to work at a rock quarry, the Boss liked Fords. We had 5 Ford trucks, 1 had an International motor, 1 had a Cat motor, 1 had a Cummins motor, 1 had a Detroit Diesel and Allison Automatic, (Both of these are built by GM), and ONLY 1 had a Ford Motor. I used tell him if he liked Fords so much, how come ONLY 1 out of 5 was powered by Ford?
Who says that you can't buy a Truck without a motor. Go out to your local Kenworth dealer and tell them you want a 'Glider Kit', that is a NEW truck WITHOUT a motor, transmission, or rearends. We had a Kenworth dump truck that was a Glider Kit. I know I had to order parts for it, and they always asked if it was a Glider Kit, the VIN was different.
Kenworth is like Dell, Kenworth sells Trucks, Dell sells Computers. And Detroit Diesel, Catapiller, and Cummins are like MS but they sell Motors, and MS sells Software.
NEVER has GM, Cat, or Cummins, EVER told Kenworth that they had to sell ONLY their motors to customers. Kenworth is free to sell anyone ANY of the 3 motors in any of there trucks. When ever you buy a used Truck you ALLWAYS have to ask what model Motor it has.
Also GM, and Cat both sell Automatic Transmissions, and NEVER have they EVER told any Truck company that if they used their Motor they had to use their Trans.
I have seen Allisons behind all sorts of motors and in all of trucks and Heavy Equipment, yes even the M60 Tank uses an Allison Automatic. I have seen the same piece of heavy equipment offer you a choice of ANY of the 3 engines. We had 2 275 Michigan Loaders 1 had a Detroit and the other had a Cummins.
So don't tell me that what MS is doing is normal. MS sells SOFTWARE. Dell sells Computers. If MS wants to sell Computers, then they can build Computers and sell all they want, But until then they HAVE NO BUSINESS telling the computer companies how to run their business.
According to the Sherman Act their are ONLY 3 reasons to adjust price.
1. Number of units sold.
2. Cost of manufacture.
3. Cost of shipping.
So, what part of that model is illegal, immoral, or unethical?
The Sherman Act says it is Illegal.
Let me go back to the Kenworth post I made.
I can walk into ANY KW shop in the country tell them I need my truck worked on and it DOESN'T matter which Motor it has.
As a Mechanic I can work on a Cat just as easily as I can work on a Cummins, or a Detriot.
Kenworth has mechanics that may just work one model of motor, but if you have a problem they can fix it.
I guess you don't know or understand the Sherman Act.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.