From: rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:31:02 GMT
Organization: San Jose State University - Math/CS Dept.

helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:

>In article <1992Dec20.3155.5785@dosgate>, "richard anstruther" <richard.anstruther@canrem.com> writes:

>|> If it were only a question of other OS's, Lotus, Borland and WP
>|> wouldn't care one way or the other.  It's applications too, or
>|> more specifically, MS's alleged habit of using its virtual
>|> monopoly in OS's 

>First of all Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on OS's.  If you want to
>run DOS programs and you don't want to go to Microsoft you can buy
>DR DOS from digital research.  And windows is facing very stiff competition
>from OS/2 now, and when Solaris from Sun, NeXTSTEP from NeXT, Taligent from
>Apple and IBM come out next year, nobody can say that the end user 
>faces a lack of options in the marketplace.

The problem is that you pay for MS-DOS, whether you want it or not!  
One of the major complaints being investigated is that MS has virtually
forced every PC-compatible vendor to pay a license fee for every system
they ship.  This is done by refusing to license on any lessor terms.
So if Joe's Clone shop ships 1000 boxes a month, they have the choice
between shipping them all with MS-DOS, or shipping none with MS-DOS.
MS has refused any middle ground.  So, since maybe 50% of Joe's 
customers want MS-DOS, he pays MS for all of them and stiffs the other
50% for the license fee for a program they may never want (and indeed,
may never see).

>|> to leverage other companies' apps out of the
>|> marketplace by giving its own application programmers the inside
>|> track to upcoming changes and undocumented features in the OS.

>Would somebody please tell me exactly what is wrong with that?  Besides
>whining "its not _fair_!!!"  Microsoft owns Windows and DOS.  What Microsoft
>wants to reveal or not reveal isn't anybody's business but Microsofts.

BS!  MS can sell MS-Windows because they can go to Corporation XYZ and
say "look, Lotus, Borland, WP, Claris, and IBM all make Windows apps, so
as you can see Windows is a standard that even Apple (Claris) and 
IBM endorse".  Without all these apps, Windows would not sell.  So
our laws make it so that a company that depends on other companies,
but is also a competitor to these companies, make it so that the 
competitive advantage enjoyed by the competing unit(s) is not that
much above the other competitors.  To make an analogy, let's say that
Chevron was the only manufacturer of automobiles.  Exxon, BP, etc.
manufacture gasoline, and they need cars in order to sell their gasoline.
Chevron also manufactures gasoline.  So can Chevron make a change in
their engine specs and not tell any of the gasoline manufacturers 
except their own?  Of course not!  

>If Lotus, Borland, WP, Novel, et al don't like how Microsoft plays, they 
>don't have to play with Microsoft.  Let them develop for UNIX or the Mac or
>OS/2 or VMS or OSF/1 or NeXTSTEP or TOS or AmigaDos DR DOS or the Acorn
>instead.

Many of them do.  But they should not be excluded from any market due
to anti-competitive strategies.

I am hoping that Sun's new WABI pans out.  That will kill NT, severely
cut into Windows, and force MS to try to stop Sun in court.  (for
the uninitiated, WABI is an interface that allows any Windows program
to run on any machine [CPU/OS combination] to which WABI has been
ported).  You could run Ami Pro 3.0 in an X-term session on your
HP workstation running HP/UX.  Take that Billy :-)
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10875 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3409