[nzlug] 'MS Tax' versus Commerce Commission

[Michael Field]

Hit send too soon by accident - starting again from the top...

I must be getting too old, and jaded. I can perfectly see how the
Commerce Commission can't act without proof of underhanded arm twisting.

1. Manufacture designs builds machine to run an operating system. They
design it to whatever is the standard of the day.

2. They test it to run properly with all the drivers, and bundle up the
'great' recovery disk feature.

3. They sell the system to customers, including the operating system it
is designed for, rather than supplying an 'blank' system and CDs for the
customer to install from.

That makes perfect logic to me.

4. Before purchase somebody asks if they really have to include the
operating system, they are bound to answer 'yes' for the following
reasons:
- The machine is shipped into the country pre-installed.
- It has all the drivers required
- It has all the 'value adds' that differentiate the product
- They have engineered their support process to work with that system
configuration. 
- The license is "purchased" from Microsoft when the image is placed on
the original disk, not when the consumer buys it.

So if somebody says "I don't want that bit" it is not an easy bit for
the retailer reseller to remove (i.e it requires opening the product and
actually doing something), they cannot provide support for the
non-factory OS, and can't be sure that the user is not cheating them.

- They could ring up afterwards and request a recovery image CD - free
Windows OS!

- They could "drop" the drive and take it in for a repair, getting the
OS replaced.

- They could bug the sipport line for hours trying to get the internal
web cam to work with Video for Linux

- They might have a crappy time with it, and then bad-mouth the brand as
being a piece of junk.

If I was in the retailer's situation, I too would say "Well, it comes
with this. Too bad". It really isn't worth their time for the small
numbers sold.

When was the last time you tried to buy:
 - A PC without a power lead? (aka The Cable Tax)
 - A bicycle without any handlebars?  (aka The Euston Tube Tax)
 - A car without any wheels? (aka the crappy alloy tax)
 - A MP3 player without ear-buds? (aka The ear-bud Tax)

In each case there are valid reasons why you might want to (just as
valid as running a different OS), but you don't really expect that the
seller will let you do so and take $ of the price.

Why should it be any different for PCs and laptops?

If you want a commodity computer without software, it then becomes a
custom computer - you should be buying it from a local retailer who
listens to you needs and acts accordingly, maybe charging a little more.

Blank 'OEM' laptops available out there, it's just that few people
imports them as the mass market ones are cheaper and less fuss to sell
and support.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Field 
Sent: Monday, 2 July 2007 4:58 p.m.
To: 'NZLUG Mailing List'
Subject: RE: [nzlug] 'MS Tax' versus Commerce Commission





-----Original Message-----
From: nzlug-bounces at linux.net.nz [mailto:nzlug-bounces at linux.net.nz] On
Behalf Of David McNab
Sent: Monday, 2 July 2007 4:12 p.m.
To: NZLUG Mailing List
Subject: [nzlug] 'MS Tax' versus Commerce Commission

Hi all,

I received a phone call from the Commerce Commission earlier today,
responding to my earlier enquiry about what we 'endearingly' (not) refer
to as the 'Microsoft Tax'.

The ComCom guy advised me that there are several sections of the
Commerce Act and other legislation where the MS Tax could be in breach,
depending on how it is effected.

For example, if OEM licenses are sold for below cost price, that is
clearly in breach. Similarly, if MS tells any hardware vendor not to
sell any Windows-less boxen or else they'll cut off supply, that is also
in breach.

The possibility of MS offering an OEM license discount in return for not
supplying Windows-less boxen, according to ComCom, is a grey area but
one that could still be investigated under anti-competitive provisions.

What ComCom makes clear (and this is to be expected) is that they would
require fairly good evidence of shady practices taking place before they
would allocate resources to investigate. Such evidence could come, for
example, as testimonials/affadavits from current or former insiders to
MS or hardware vendors.

But wherever ComCom stands on the issue, the problem remains - it's damn
near impossible to buy a computer, especially a laptop, for the purposes
of running Linux without paying a portion of the price to Microsoft, for
software that one will never use.

In comparison, many of us would not like it if we could not purchase a
stereo without $100 worth of CDs of the Spice Girls, Crazy Frog, Vanilla
Ice etc being tacked on to the price tag.

Cheers
David

P.S. It's not beyond sanity to envisage an organised campaign of Linux
enthusiasts ringing the big hardware vendors and asking for hardware
without MS Tax, especially when we're actually ready to pay for new
hardware.




_______________________________________________
NZLUG mailing list NZLUG at linux.net.nz
http://www.linux.net.nz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nzlug
Computer Concepts Limited
25 Leslie Hills Drive
PO Box 8744 Riccarton
Christchurch, New Zealand

Phone:  +64-3-348-2500
Fax:    +64-3-343-7569

Notice of confidential information:
The information contained in this e-mail message is 
confidential information and may also be legally privileged, 
intended only for the individual or entity named above.  
If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby
notified that any use, review, dissemination, distribution
or copying of this document is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this document in error, please 
immediately notify the sender by telephone and destroy the
message. Thank you.

All prices quoted in this email are exclusive of GST & Freight and
valid only while stocks last.