[Klug-general] Re: Mark Shuttleworth interview

Peter Apps peter at sheppey.free-online.co.uk
Thu Aug 24 18:44:12 BST 2006


On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 15:04 +0200, George Prowse wrote:
> On 23/08/06, Peter Apps <peter at sheppey.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
> > I have been reading the various emails on this subject and  have been
> > amazed at the acrimony and petulance in some of the messages.
> I've been quite matter-of-fact-ly about it but yes, i agree
> >
> > There are two question I would like answered. First, as a free public
> > service channel, should C4, ITV or the BBC exclude 20% of it's audience
> > because of the make of receiving equipment they have. Does anything in
> > their charters cover this point?
> well it is more like 10% but i can imagine that C4 and ITV dont have
> to do anything they dont want to because they are commercial comanies
> and dont have an public service obligation (except in exceptional
> circumstances, i think).
I think Microsoft has about 80% of the market and has 10%. This problem
is not restricted to Linux. TV companies are franchised so do have some
obligations. 

> >
> > When the nationalised companies were sold off, great efforts were made
> > to give rival companies to compete and to destroy monopolies. By tying
> > their Internet audience to Microsoft products are the TV companies going
> > against these anti-monopoly principles?
> Unlikely. The anti-monopoly laws were brought into place to stop any
> one company using their position in the marketplace to deliberately
> disadvantage others.
This is precisely what Microsoft does. It was taken to court in America
because Internet Explorer was too tightly linked  to Windows thus
restricting competition with other Explorers and it is  before the
European courts to make it release code to allow rivals to create more
competitive software.
> 
> Because we have whats called "precedent" in british law it would have
> bound to have come up before so the outcome may be decided on the
> outcome of the previous case.
The ideal precedent would be where a judge has ruled that an 80% (or
90%) share of the market constitutes a monopoly.
> 
> In this case, because they are tring to reach a wide audience of
> around 90% then that is more than sufficient to be 'within reason'

What is the advantage of a TV company using a format bound by licenses
and 'intellectual property' considerations if there public domain
solutions. Is there a technical answer to this?

I accept that in this case C4 is aiming for a wide audience but surely
they should use formats that allows 100% coverage even if that means
admitting that there is life beyond Windows.

I am definitely not suggesting anyone sues C4. I am suggesting someone
prepares a  well founded case that the company's various administrative
departments can understand.

Peter
> George
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Kent mailing list
> Kent at mailman.lug.org.uk
> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/kent
> --
> This email has been verified as Virus free
> Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net




More information about the Kent mailing list