You have it backwards.
Dell and Microsoft have a contract.
According to that contract, YOU have NO right to interject yourself into IT. They were first to agree. YOU are left to go with the program, or shop elsewhere.
I dont see what is so difficult to understand. Before you buy a loaf of bread, the Bread Maker has entered into dozens of contracts with suppliers that you have NO right to amend. All you can do is go elsewhere, if you dont like where the bread maker got the flour, the eggs, the salt, you name it. You buy the loaf, as described by the VENDOR, or you dont. It is that simple.
No. I buy a PC from Dell its between me and Dell. If I want software on the PC that's between Me, Dell and the software manufacturers. I AM a party to the sale. I am buying a commodity. M$ interference in my business was ruled illegal by the Federal Government. The whole point is that Dell HAD/HAS the right to sell "naked PCs" -- hardware only. M$ is trying to force Dell to make me pay for software that I neither received and /or do not intend to use.
There is a consent decree between M$ and the DOJ that M$ would not interject themselves into a contract when they were not party to it. It appears that M$ is violating this consent degree.
As it has been ruled that I have the right to buy from Dell a naked PC, and Dell has the right to sell me a naked PC, and M$ has already agreed that it would not interject into a negotiation for which it is not a party, how is this behavior of M$ legal?
If Dell no longer wishes to sell naked PCs, that's another matter. But here Dell wants to sell naked PCs, and I want to buy one, yet I must still M$ a fee. How is this legal, particularly in light of the recent court case?
I need to explain further. Yes, of course that is a true statement, but irrelevant in this context. The contract between Dell and M$ is only applicable to the PCs that Dell manufactures that contain M$ software on them M$ has NO legal hold over Dell manufacturing. M$ does not own Dell. If Dell wants to ship their computers spray painted in orange paint, its not M$s business. The moment they put M$ software on a Dell computer it is M$s business,
Here is a case, where Dell, the manufactuer is able to create a hardware box that is independent of M$ -- its "naked" -- there is NO contact between Dell and M$ to cover this as there is NO M$ software on the naked PC.
In this context, what right does M$ have to interject itself into a sale of a PC when it was not party to the sale?