3 ms·
Doesn't this practice violate the 1994 consent decree with the FTC? The linked article states that MS could only charge computer manufacturers if MS software wa
by joelhaus 15y ago
Doesn't this practice violate the 1994 consent decree with the FTC? The linked article states that MS could only charge computer manufacturers if MS software was installed. I guess the decree must have expired, because it seems that the Android OS situation directly applies.
BTW, fascinating article, thx! At the time, all of the MS anti-trust stuff seemed so distant, but given the current tech landscape, it seems to have taken on much greater importance.
- SwellJoe 15y agoIt certainly does seem to tell us something about the deep-seated character (or lack thereof) within the company.
- btilly 15y agoThe decree was that they couldn't charge by the machine, regardless of whether MS software was installed. I believe that Microsoft's response was to charge by the CPU instead, which technically wasn't covered in the decree, but had almost the same effect. In this case they aren't charging by the CPU, they are charging by the operating system that ships with Microsoft's "intellectual property". If they got away with the per-CPU crapola 15 years ago, nobody will blink an eye at the current arrangement.