Comments

• Michael

  2011-10-23 03:43:14

  FUD: ----- Antitrust complaints have already been filed against Microsoft in response to blocking of Linux through UEFI [1, 2, 3, 4], so ZDNet’s Microsoft’s bloggers start disinformation campaigns (two of them so far). It is like a coverup attempt. ----- Roy has 4 links.
  
  To his own pages.
  
  None of them speak of any current antitrust complaints filed against Microsoft.

• saulgoode

  2011-10-23 08:30:54

  The provided links are not necessarily provided as annotation to the fact that antitrust complaints have been filed -- but perhaps merely to previous Techrights coverage of "blocking of Linux through UEFI", or even just "UEFI".
  
  The expectation that every hyperlink offered on a web page has to address the entirety of the topic of discussion or offer substantial proof of an argument is misguided. If a blog states that "Neil Armstrong is an avid reader of Vogon poetry", a reader should not complain that the hyperlink provided fails to substantiate the statement.
  
  Complaining that Techrights articles contain lots of links to other Techrights articles is as nonsensical as would be complaining about Wikipedia articles containing links to other Wikipedia articles.

• Michael

  2011-10-23 13:49:04

  Your link does not even have the word "antitrust" either.
  
  Is there any evidence to back Roy's claim?

• saulgoode

  2011-10-23 14:14:05

  Your link does not even have the word “antitrust” either.

  The complaint was registered based upon concerns regarding Australia's Competition and Consumer Act. If you examine that law, Part IV does indeed cover "antitrust", and it is hard to see how any of the other Parts should apply. It is possible the complaint filed covered other aspects of the Act; feel free to investigate and present what you find. The facts as presented by the article give all appearance to being accurate; at least one complaint has been filed, and it references a law covering antitrust.

• Michael

  2011-10-23 14:21:39

  I am not interested in digging to try to support what Roy cannot.
  
  The point is not that Roy is necessarily wrong - the point is he does not support his points.

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2011-10-23 14:22:31

  @saulgoode you are feeding a known troll. To quote Microsoft Bott, "Why won’t Microsoft tell PC manufacturers how to implement secure boot on their computer designs? Because anything they say can be used against them in a court of law. Literally." (from blog post "With Windows 8, Microsoft can't forget past antitrust issues")
  
  Also see http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/733030

• Michael

  2011-10-23 14:28:30

  Roy: I note how you are not supporting your claims, and your reaction is simply to call me names. You then point to a link which speaks of "pending introduction of criminal sanctions" but does not even mention if any official antitrust complaints have been filed.

• saulgoode

  2011-10-23 18:03:52

  The point is not that Roy is necessarily wrong – the point is he does not support his points.

  No. You asserted that the claim was "FUD" -- regardless whether or not supporting evidence was provided. If I claim the Earth is round and you respond that my claim is "FUD" because I did not reference my sources, this represents an utter failure of logical thinking on your part.

• Michael

  2011-10-23 18:15:21

  Claiming the earth is round is not an attack against someone.
  
  Roy repeatedly posts claims he fails to support to push his fear, uncertainty and doubt.
  
  Bottom line: Roy spewed accusations he failed to support... you cannot support them either but you will give him a free pass because your think his BS is not properly labeled as "FUD".
  
  What a pathetic defense of his lack of support.

• saulgoode

  2011-10-23 21:37:37

  Claiming the earth is round is not an attack against someone.

  Nor is pointing out that anti-trust complaints have been filed against Microsoft in response to their UEFI proposal. That is what you claimed was FUD -- and yet you provided nothing to substantiate your claim, while the fact is complaints have been filed.
  
  

  Bottom line: Roy spewed accusations he failed to support… you cannot support them either...

  I provided a link to an article which asserted that complaints have been filed with the Australian government. If you have reason to doubt the veracity of that article, why not address your response there? Or at least present some reasoning to support your contention that the claim is false?
  
  

  ...but you will give him a free pass because your think his BS is not properly labeled as “FUD”.

  And yet you've provided nothing toward discounting the claim. Where is the substantiation for your view? If you're "not interested in digging" to find out whether a claim made is true or false then what justification can there be for accusing the claim of being unfounded? Do you feel it reasonable to charge people with spreading "BS" when you admit that you're not interested in discovering the truth?

• Michael

  2011-10-23 21:46:42

  What antitrust complaints have been filed against MS in response to their UEFI proposal? What is the complaint and where can I read it?
  
  And if you can produce such, fine... the point was Roy did not.
  
  

  ?

  wiwiwiw

• Michael

  2011-10-23 21:47:31

  Whoops... sincere apologies about the added wiwiwiwiw and question mark. Pasted the wrong thing.

• saulgoode

  2011-10-24 10:00:13

  The first sentence on the page to which I linked in my first response:

  A number of Australian Linux users have filed a formal complaint with the national competition regulator over what many perceive to be restrictive practices introduced in upcoming Microsoft’s Windows 8 operating system which may stop many mass-market computers from being able to boot alternatives such as Linux.

  
  
  The Zdnet article (therein linked) provides this response as being from the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission:
  
  

  Section 47 of the Act prohibits exclusive dealing. Broadly speaking, exclusive dealing occurs when one person trading with another imposes some restrictions on the other's freedom to choose with whom, in what or where they deal. Exclusive dealing is only a breach of the Act where the conduct has the purpose, effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition in the market. In an assessment of the effect of the conduct on competition, it is not enough merely to show that an individual business has been damaged. The wider market for the particular product or service must be considered.
  
  The situation you described may raise issues of exclusive dealing, but it is unclear from the details provided whether it would be likely to meet the competition test described.

  If you do not consider "exclusive dealing" to qualify as an "antitrust" concern, I would direct you to what the United States Federal Trade Commission has to say on the matter.
  
  Are you disputing the facts as presented on those websites? Are you disputing that exclusive dealing qualifies as an "antitrust" concern?
  
  Even so, you have presented a non sequitur argument that since this article did not provide links that address the actual filing of complaints, no complaints have been filed. Your logic is flawed. Complaints have been filed and this article's report of that fact is accurate.

• Michael

  2011-10-24 13:12:49

  Fair enough. All I ask for is support.
  
  Now why couldn't Roy offer any.
  
  Sincerely, thank you.