Summary: Groklaw brings out another old example where Microsoft used the boot sequence anti-competitively

Michael Reed is the latest person to write about "restricted boot" (or UEFI) in a major GNU/Linux Web site. Matthew Garrett, who started a lot of the outcry, calls it a bug and Groklaw helps remind us that "Microsoft’s license provision [was] prohibiting OEMs from modifying the initial boot sequence…"

From the latest article published by Pamela Jones:

Novell v. Microsoft -- What's It All About? ~ by pj

[...]

These are not allegations; they are findings from the DOJ case against Microsoft, and now Novell is asking the court to rule that they are established for this case as well. It's an awful list, but two absolutely leap off the page in 2011, the one "Microsoft’s license provision prohibiting OEMs from modifying the initial boot sequence…" and the one "Microsoft’s intellectual property rights did not confer a privilege to violate the antitrust laws, id. at 63, and Microsoft could not justify these license restrictions on the grounds that it was simply exercising its rights as the holder of valid copyrights…" Presumably the latter is also true of patents. And on the booting question, it's creepy to realize that right now, Microsoft is requiring OEMs to use a "Secure Boot" feature if they ship Windows 8 that has the potential to block competing operating systems, like Linux, from being put on a machine with Windows 8.

We gave several other examples of Microsoft sabotaging Linux adoption through booting complexity [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] . The worst thing one can do is assume good faith from Microsoft. The people who run the company are extremely anti-competitive. Don't blame Microsoft; it's in their nature. ⬆

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

--George Santayana