[Sussex] I don't see how what M$ are doing can be legal

[Tony Austin]

I heard a story a while back that M$ threatened to withdraw Dell's licence
to sell M$ OEM software on their computers if they sold ANY computers
without an M$ OS.  As we know, Dell offer servers with Linux as an option.
 The story went that Dell bundled in a copy of MSDOS 6.22 to satisfy M$
and all was then well.  I don't know if this is true, but it sounds
ridiculously plausible.

I have also heard anecdotes about people trying to buy OS-less computers
in PC World and being told that it would be "illegal" for them to sell a
computer without an M$ OS.

In LinuxFormat a couple of months back there was a rave review of an
Evesham Linux PC bundle with Mandrake 9.1 installed.  One of my customers
was very interested as it came with OOo preinstalled. DVD players, sound,
scanner etc ....  We didn't get round to ordering it due to other things
that needed doing, but then it came up again.  I went back to the Evesham
web site to find the Linux box but there was no sign fo it.  Only PCs with
M$ on them and on every page there is the slogan "Evesham recommends
Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional".

So I emailed Evesham asking if they still do the Linux box.  Answer "no,
due to lack of demand but we can supply Linux servers".  I said this was a
pity as I had a customer who was interested and asked what customisations
they had done to Mandrake and could they supply the box wihtout an OS so
that I could do the Mandrake install.  To which the replay was:-

---

There were a number of customisation to the desktop, applications, printer
support, modem support etc.
Due to licensing laws we have to adhere to we have to provide an operating
system to any system sold and generally that would be either XP Home or Pro.
It has been pointed out that due to these customisations, not only would you
need to remove the operating system we would provide there would be some
serious tweaking that would need to be done. As we no longer supply and
support the operating system, you would be on your own regarding any issues
encountered.

Unfortunately, hardly the most ideal situation to be in.

---

So I challenged them about whose "law" it was that said they couldn't sell
a computer wihtout an M$ OS.  To which the reply was :-

---

I may have used the wrong wording to explain the situation. To provide
systems, we are unable to supply without an operating system as this
contravenes the agreement we have signed with Microsoft as we are licensed
with them as an OEM provider. All systems have to comply with Whql (Windows
House Quality Lab) driver stipulations that they set. You are correct in
that you would have to purchase a system with a MS operating system and then
remove. You point of that extra revenue is a common grievance particularly
for those who wish to use Linux as this is free and has, shall we say a
different philosophy to MS.
If we were to contravene this licence agreement, MS are within their rights
to remove the licence. We would then be unable to sell systems with their
operating system which would prove, as you could imagine, a large
disadvantage within the market place.

---

Now, this sounds like a restrictive monopolistic practice to me.  M$ are
saying to anyone that supplies computer systems, "If you want to be able
to supply computers with M$ OS, you cannot sell computers without an M$
OS".

I can't see how this can be legal.  Does anyone know what the legality of
this is and if there is any way that it could be challenged?  If it can be
challenged perhaps we are the very people to be doing it.

Regards.

Tony Austin
Gigaday Computing Limited
http://www.gigaday.com
tony at gigaday.com