From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: Microsoft and Force continued.
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:36:46 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.182306.201282@locus.com>, lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan10.003641.11144@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|> >In article <726581482rommel.root@jonas.gold.sub.org>, rommel@jonas.gold.sub.org (Kai Uwe Rommel) writes:
|> >|> In article <1993Jan9.004117.29420@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
|> >|> >|> 	In 1990, Nintendo America would often threaten not to let stores
|> >|> >|> sell Nintendo or Nintendo made cartridges for their popular game machine
|> >|> >|> if the seller stocked competing systems.  This is wrong.
|> >|> >
|> >|> >Ever try buying a Frosty at McDonalds? 
|> >|> 
|> >|> The game store is not owned by Nintendo and the computer sellers are
|> >|> not owned by Microsoft. But then, even Mercedes Benz dealers sell used
|> >|> BMW and VW cars and vice versa.
|> >
|> >A McDonald's restraunt isn't owned by McDonald's either.
|> Ah, I think we are in a semantic conflict here.  A McDonald's resturant is
|> either owned by McDonalds or Franchised by them (a limited Ownership).
|> In order to sell a McDonalds (a trade marked item) you must have this
|> liscense. 

Yes yes exactly!  Youz guyz are trying to say that just because an agreement
is exclusive or restrictive, that it is a BAD THING (tm).  I'm just pointing
out that exclusive agreements go on all the time and there's nothing
wrong with them.

|> You do not need the license to sell a hamberger or a shake
|> except from your local city government.

You do if you want to sell as McDonalds burger.  And if you want to sell a
Microsoft OS you've got to make a contract with Microsoft.  This is a no-brainer
guys.

|> No license or franchise by Microsoft is required to operate an independent
|> computer store.

Duhhh, no, but a contract with Microsoft is necessary to sell Windows.

|>  And since Microsoft doesn't sell computers why should
|> that computer store be forced to sell DOS Pre-installed.

*sigh* there's that "F" word again.  The cloners can put any OS on their 
machines they want.

|> <much deleted>
|> >
|> >|> MS is trying to force independent dealers NOT
|> >|> to sell competing products. Microsoft does not sell Windows directly
|> >|> to end users.
|> >
|> >McDonald's does the same thing to its dealers.
|> McDonald's dealers are franchies, not independents, your analogy is incorrect.

Its not an analogy.  McDonald's is _much_ more restrictive on its dealers than
Microsoft is:

Look at it this way:  Microsoft doesn't require its dealers to change their
names to "Microsoft", or to put big goofy-looking golden arches on their
roofs, or to put "Over 10 million served" on their signs.  The agreements
which Microsoft signs with cloners is less restrictive than the agreements
which McDonalds signs.  

Therefore, If what Microsoft is doing is wrong, then what McDonalds is doing
is doubly wrong, and to top it all off, it is a crime against basic human
architectural and aestetic rights.  But what McDonald's is doing is
right, and so is what Microsoft is doing.

|> >|> 
|> >|> You got something wrong. Your example is reversed. Compare MS to if
|> >|> C.C. was trying to force all men in the world to sleep ONLY with her. :-) :-) 
|> >|> You would flame her for forcing competing women out of the market. :-)
|> >
|> >Actually, I know a lot of women who won't sleep with a man unless she sleeps
|> >only with her.
|> But the question is would you flame the woman if she insisted that
|> every man sleep with her and no other.

Quite so.  But I wouldn't sleep with her.  How could she make me?