4 ms·
Actually, my impression is that restricting third-party software isn't illegal in general either. If Tivo cuts a deal for Samsung to make Samsung-branded Tivo b
by wanorris 19y ago
Actually, my impression is that restricting third-party software isn't illegal in general either. If Tivo cuts a deal for Samsung to make Samsung-branded Tivo boxes, Tivo can still include a clause in the contract that stops them from loading additional software on board, right?
The issue was that Microsoft did in fact have a de facto monopoly (>90% share) on operating systems, and was leveraging that monopoly for control of other markets. EULAs have always been a dicey legal area, but no sensible judge is going to throw out Apple's EULA simply on the grounds that they have a monopoly when they are obviously the (still distant) #2 player in the OS market.
- tptacek 19y agoAm I missing the other legal barrier Cisco has to prevent people from adapting IOS to aftermarket hardware, though, or is that just EULA? I note with amusement that Cisco has a much more constrictive and anticompetitive monopoly in switching than Microsoft ever had.
- wanorris 19y agoGood question. I don't follow Cisco closely, but it may simply be the EULA (and the team of legal attack dogs behind it). It may also be the implicit expectation that computers are made to run other software while switches are closed-case boxes engineered as a single unit. This is pretty stupid to most engineers, because there isn't much technical difference between the two, but sometimes legal things work that way. It's also possible that Cisco has an antitrust suit in it's future (but probably only under a Democratic administration).