Microsoft suing Brazilian official [LWN.net]

Microsoft suing Brazilian official

Posted Jun 21, 2004 16:44 UTC (Mon) by alan (subscriber, #4018)
Parent article: Microsoft suing Brazilian official

Although I'm sure they dislike the comparison of their legal business tactics to an illegal activity, if the shoe fits,..

Would this be protected free speech in the U.S.?

Microsoft suing Brazilian official

Posted Jun 21, 2004 18:00 UTC (Mon) by hummassa (guest, #307) [Link]

Free Speech is a Constitutional right here, too. But we *do* have slander and libel here, also.

Truth is an absolute defense

Posted Jun 21, 2004 18:19 UTC (Mon) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339) [Link] (3 responses)

Truth is an absolute defense.

"The first hit is free" is truly like "the first license is free" since the expectation of both parties is that the free product will create a propensity to buy subsequent product from the friendly dealer. Also both products create a dependency for more product down the line and as the user becomes more dependent on the product the price can be easily adjusted to not only recoop the loss-leading "free" product but to swallow up an entire budget to the extent funds meant for other items will likely be raided to cover the continued acquisition of more product.

Insert "drugs" or "licenses" in place of "product" and the above remains true in both cases.

I like the defense's chances.

Truth is an absolute defense

Posted Jun 21, 2004 21:14 UTC (Mon) by mmarsh (subscriber, #17029) [Link] (2 responses)

On the other hand, the plaintiff is likely to make the argument that their free licenses are more akin to free samples at the grocery store. You try a little for free, and if you like it you pay for more. Now, I'm not saying this is a _valid_ argument, especially since free samples at the grocery store don't result in tooth lock-in (unless it's Tetanus Crunchies or something), but it might be enough to convince a jury.

Free samples or shoplifting?

Posted Jun 21, 2004 21:47 UTC (Mon) by Ross (guest, #4065) [Link]

Microsoft isn't giving away copies; they are looking the other way while
people are illegally duplicating their product. Of course that doesn't
mean it is more similar to drug dealing, just that "free samples" does not
convey an important aspect of the situation.

Truth is an absolute defense

Posted Jun 22, 2004 0:30 UTC (Tue) by melauer (guest, #2438) [Link]

> On the other hand, the plaintiff is likely to make the argument that their free
> licenses are more akin to free samples at the grocery store. You try a little for free,
> and if you like it you pay for more.

The problem with that argument is that, like free samples of drugs but unlike
free samples at the store, there is a lock-in quality to a free software giveaway.
Once you standardize on a particular set of software for your organization, it is
extra expensive to change to a different software base. You have to retrain
staff, deal with files in old proprietary formats, and all that.

When you get a free sample at the store, it doesn't cost you anything to say "No
I don't want to buy anything else, thank you". With drugs and software, once
you're locked in, there's an extra cost (pain and suffering -- personal in one
case, financial in the other :) for quitting.

Microsoft is now legal??

Posted Jun 21, 2004 19:38 UTC (Mon) by hazelsct (guest, #3659) [Link]

Legal business tactics? Isn't settlement of the antitrust suit equivalent to admitting violation of US law?

As to whether illegally squelching competition and thereby reducing public welfare by bundling of products, and illegally using market power to threaten OEMs with higher license fees if they promote competing OSes, and flagrantly lying about it all in court, is comparable to selling illegal addictive substances... It's arguable, and I too would bet on the defense here.

This is clearly a power/intimidation tactic, and looks likely to blow up in their faces. Thanks Microsoft!