From: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 20:15:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.164545.28198@tc.cornell.edu>,
bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.154910.6846@kth.se> d89-zke@dront.nada.kth.se (Zoltan Kelemen) writes:
>
>>Well, the problem is that I, as a customer, don't see the alternatives
>>to MS Windows or DOS when buying a computer. Why? Because almost every
>>system is bundled with Windows. How on earth could I make a fair price
>>comparison with other products, when I get Windows "free" (its price is
>>hidden as a part of the system).
>
>You have an alternative: hire few programmers to write one for you.
>Obviously you dont want to do it because it is too expensive. You
>want someone else to invest and risk his money to write one for you.
>MS did that. Now people are claiming that it is unfair business,
>because it was successful.

     I think I'm seeing the argument from a different angle than
you.  I don't see people complaining about unfair business practices
because MS wrote DOS.  People are complaining about (as SJB so
eloquently put it) MS making up the rules but not playing by them.
MS makes OS's.  That's fine.  MS makes applications.  That's fine,
too.  The problem is that they are allowing their application
developers to use calls from their OS that other developers can't
use.  This gives MS applications an unfair advantage over the
competitors applications.
     The question isn't a matter of ownership of the OS.  MS wrote
MS-DOS, and nobody is going to argue that (I guess it depends on
what I mean by 'wrote'...).  It's a question of interpreting the
law.  That is what the FTC is out to do.  If the law is interpreted
that MS is being unfair, then the FTC has every right to break up
the company.  Period.
     And to be completely honest, I think that even if MS is broken
up into several smaller companies, it will be a largely symbolic
act.  It probably won't affect people that much.

>
>Unfortunately, we are not born with a coupon that entitles us
>for a cheap Operating System. Someone else must produce it for
>us at his/her own risk. And these who do are entitled to a return
>if they succeed.
>

     A return, yes.  Binding contracts which allow no other
alternatives, no.  MS has reaped quite a little reward for writing
DOS, and they probably deserve at least most of it.  In the past, it
wasn't as big of a deal, as MS didn't have contracts which hampered
the ability of competitors to do business, and they weren't
competing as heavily in the applications market.  Now, though, MS
has practically forced (yes *forced*) vendors to either load MS-DOS
on all machines, or only have access to MS-DOS at a more expensive
price.  This is what's unfair.  MS knows that MS-DOS is what would
probably be loaded anyway, but instead they want to force the OS on
to the minority of people who would rather have another OS.  This
is what is hampering competition.  If MS was secure enough to feel
like DOS is a worthwhile OS, they would let people choose it,
instead of forcing it on people.

Timothy Miller

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy