-=> On 01-10-98  09:31 Mark Logsdon said to Tom Enright <=-
 TE> What about Microsoft's little policy of *requiring* vendors to
 TE> buy Internet Explorer in order to be *allowed* to purchase
 TE> Windows 95?  That, to me, is an unfair trade practice.  If Gates
 ML> Is it fair for the New York Times to force me to purchase the
 ML> classified ads and the lifestyle section when all I really want to
 ML> read is the sports section?  The nerve of the Times to *require* me
 ML> to buy the entire newspaper in order to be *allowed* to purchase the
 ML> sports page.  Is that an unfair trade practice?  No, it's the free
 ML> market.  I'm simply playing devil's advocate here.
This would be a valid argument *only* if you were charged
separately for each section and *then* not given a choice about
how many or which sections you wanted.  You are paying one price 
for the whole paper as a package.
The OEM vendors are paying for *two* separate items and not being
given a choice in the matter.  If they don't pay for IE, they
cannot buy Win95.  If Microsoft wanted to simply bundle IE in on
the deal (even with a slight price increase) there would not be a
problem.  Note that this *only* applies to the OEM version, not
the retail versions.  In the retail versions IE *is* bundled in
for no additional charge.
T.E. - San Diego Ilks (Sgt. at Arms)
... Windows95, written entirely by blondes.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR]
--- GEcho 1.20/Pro
---------------