Comments on: How Microsoft and Intel Conspired Against the GNU/Linux/AMD Laptops http://techrights.org/2008/08/10/microsoft-and-intel-conspired/ Free Software Sentry – watching and reporting maneuvers of those threatened by software freedom Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:00:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jose_X http://techrights.org/2008/08/10/microsoft-and-intel-conspired/comment-page-1/#comment-27900 Jose_X Thu, 16 Oct 2008 14:02:50 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/08/10/microsoft-and-intel-conspired/#comment-27900 [Chris Lees] >> Since when is it illegal to sell products below cost to take sales away from competitors? It’s certainly not illegal anywhere in the developed world. Where did you get that? Could you cite something? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing >> Predatory pricing (also known as destroyer pricing) is the practice of a firm selling a product at very low price with the intent of driving competitors out of the market, or create a barrier to entry into the market for potential new competitors... >> In many countries predatory pricing is considered anti-competitive and is illegal under antitrust laws. [Chris Lees] >> Since when is it illegal to sell products below cost to take sales away from competitors? It’s certainly not illegal anywhere in the developed world.

Where did you get that? Could you cite something?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing
>> Predatory pricing (also known as destroyer pricing) is the practice of a firm selling a product at very low price with the intent of driving competitors out of the market, or create a barrier to entry into the market for potential new competitors…
>> In many countries predatory pricing is considered anti-competitive and is illegal under antitrust laws.

]]> By: Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2008/08/10/microsoft-and-intel-conspired/comment-page-1/#comment-19034 Roy Schestowitz Tue, 12 Aug 2008 07:41:48 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/08/10/microsoft-and-intel-conspired/#comment-19034 <a href="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070726-eu-slaps-intel-with-formal-antitrust-charges.html" rel="nofollow">One example</a> One example

]]> By: Chris Lees http://techrights.org/2008/08/10/microsoft-and-intel-conspired/comment-page-1/#comment-19033 Chris Lees Tue, 12 Aug 2008 07:38:58 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/08/10/microsoft-and-intel-conspired/#comment-19033 Since when is it illegal to sell products below cost to take sales away from competitors? It's certainly not illegal anywhere in the developed world. Show me an OFF-SITE reference for this piece of information you have about it being illegal in Nigeria. Since when is it illegal to sell products below cost to take sales away from competitors? It’s certainly not illegal anywhere in the developed world. Show me an OFF-SITE reference for this piece of information you have about it being illegal in Nigeria.

]]> By: John Wilson http://techrights.org/2008/08/10/microsoft-and-intel-conspired/comment-page-1/#comment-19030 John Wilson Tue, 12 Aug 2008 05:20:17 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/08/10/microsoft-and-intel-conspired/#comment-19030 The web site that published this and the newspaper it comes from is the Sunday Times of London. sister paper of The Times of London. I think you need to make that clear in your first paragraph as "The Times', at least in the United States would probably be interpreted as "The New York Times". Beyond that. The Sunday Times has never been one to be in the pocket of any entity, political party or, even Microsoft. They've also had something of a crusading background though usually conservative causes (conservative in the British social sense not Conservative, necessarily, in the British political sense). You also express surprise that the paper's editors didn't spike the story. There's a very good reason for that. Rupert Murdock, owner of News Corp which owns the Sunday Times and Times of London had given $2 million to OLPC. Murdock doesn't like being crossed. That's one very good reason it wasn't spiked. There's another very good reason it wasn't spiked. It's just, only just possible to "buy" a British newspaper as Microsoft has been accused of doing in the United States. The problem is that they don't stay bought. The reason is the fact that British newspapers are fiercely competitive and this story could have been put together by any of them. So if The Sunday Times hadn't run with it you bet your bottom dollar that someone would have. British tabloids would have had a field day with it. All that said it is a great story and quite accurate. As I said, Rupert Murdock doesn't like being crossed and he isn't afraid to fire a broadside or two at whoever did it. ttfn John The web site that published this and the newspaper it comes from is the Sunday Times of London. sister paper of The Times of London.

I think you need to make that clear in your first paragraph as “The Times’, at least in the United States would probably be interpreted as “The New York Times”.

Beyond that. The Sunday Times has never been one to be in the pocket of any entity, political party or, even Microsoft. They’ve also had something of a crusading background though usually conservative causes (conservative in the British social sense not Conservative, necessarily, in the British political sense).

You also express surprise that the paper’s editors didn’t spike the story. There’s a very good reason for that. Rupert Murdock, owner of News Corp which owns the Sunday Times and Times of London had given $2 million to OLPC.

Murdock doesn’t like being crossed. That’s one very good reason it wasn’t spiked.

There’s another very good reason it wasn’t spiked. It’s just, only just possible to “buy” a British newspaper as Microsoft has been accused of doing in the United States. The problem is that they don’t stay bought.
The reason is the fact that British newspapers are fiercely competitive and this story could have been put together by any of them. So if The Sunday Times hadn’t run with it you bet your bottom dollar that someone would have.

British tabloids would have had a field day with it.

All that said it is a great story and quite accurate.

As I said, Rupert Murdock doesn’t like being crossed and he isn’t afraid to fire a broadside or two at whoever did it.

ttfn

John

]]> By: twitter http://techrights.org/2008/08/10/microsoft-and-intel-conspired/comment-page-1/#comment-18791 twitter Sun, 10 Aug 2008 19:15:29 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/08/10/microsoft-and-intel-conspired/#comment-18791 I put this link in your Asus article but think it better belongs here. Microsoft has colluded with OEMs to <a href="http://www.computerworlduk.com/technology/hardware/laptops/news/index.cfm?newsid=9006" rel="nofollow">limit hardware specs for GNU/Linux laptops</a>. These include forcing XP installs, small screen, low memory and slow processor requirements. While it makes some sense for laptop makers to protect the lucrative market for ultra mobiles like the Mac Air or Thinkpad X series, selling XP on devices that won't run it well is crazy. In a really free market, someone would want to undercut their competitors anyway. The deal only makes sense if M$ has threatened them with Windows licensing punishment and they see some value in that still. This is why you won't find $200 laptops around, for now, M$ has successfully protected it's market. This is the kind of business that got M$ busted for anti-trust back when they destroyed Netscape. We can only hope that EU and US regulators are paying attention. I put this link in your Asus article but think it better belongs here.

Microsoft has colluded with OEMs to limit hardware specs for GNU/Linux laptops. These include forcing XP installs, small screen, low memory and slow processor requirements. While it makes some sense for laptop makers to protect the lucrative market for ultra mobiles like the Mac Air or Thinkpad X series, selling XP on devices that won’t run it well is crazy. In a really free market, someone would want to undercut their competitors anyway. The deal only makes sense if M$ has threatened them with Windows licensing punishment and they see some value in that still. This is why you won’t find $200 laptops around, for now, M$ has successfully protected it’s market.

This is the kind of business that got M$ busted for anti-trust back when they destroyed Netscape. We can only hope that EU and US regulators are paying attention.

]]>