SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly?
MSFT 486.96-1.0%3:59 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: nnillionaire who wrote (4248)12/12/1997 4:25:00 PM
From: Sowbug   of 74651
 
I am a lawyer. The following might help everyone understand exactly what's going on here (John got it essentially right):

In intellectual property law there's something called "tying," and it's almost always illegal. For example, I have a patent on a machine that washes dishes. The machine needs (1) water softener, (2) dishwashing detergent, and (3) machine oil.

Suppose I sold the dishwasher, but ONLY if you bought a two years' supply of water softener, dishwashing detergent, and machine oil. Furthermore, the expected lifetime of the washer is two years.

This is tying. I have a patent on the machine, but I'm trying to extend the power of the patent over three completely non-patented things, thereby eliminating all supplier competition.

What I have to do to avoid getting hit with an antitrust penalty is sell all the following packages:

1. The machine separately;
2. The machine with supplies;
3. The supplies alone.

I can give wonderful discounts for the supplies if you buy it all together, but you have to give your competitors a chance to sell your machine's supplies.

The MSFT situation isn't exactly like tying, but the judge's ruling is essentially similar to what a tying antitrust remedy would be.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext