From: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Date: Tue Dec 10 2002 - 17:00:53 MST
> (riel@nl.linux.org <riel@nl.linux.org>):
>
> > Other than that, I have no problem whatsoever with giving away the
> > browser to put Netscape out of business (that's perfectly fair play
> > as far as I'm concerned),
>
> Though the fact that Spyglass (who wrote the browser) didn't
> get any income as a result of that was a bit sneaky.
If you're stupid enough to sign a contract giving you a percentage
of nothing, that's what you get...
> > or with making exclusive contracts with hardware suppliers forbidding
> > them to offer alternatives (if Compaq wants to sign a contract like
> > that, it's their business), or any of the other so-called "crimes" he is
> > charged with.
>
> The practice of forcing consumers to buy one product together
> with another product is actually illegal in the EU and many
> other countries. The reason behind that is to prevent monopoly
> situations that harm the public instead of benefitting them.
It's illegal here as well. I just said I don't believe it's wrong,
and I don't. Tying arrangements are just good business; it's not
"force" if the consumer still has a choice of both or neither.
The fact that it doesn't give consumers a third choice that they
would probably like cannot be called "harm" by any rational
definition of the word.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:39 MST