|
|
|
| Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, December 04 2012 @ 02:10 PM EST |
Well, that might be a legal problem, because as of now the Vile Monopoly has
negligible market presence in at least the tablet and phone segments of the
market.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 04 2012 @ 02:30 PM EST |
Newbury-not-signed-in
This twigged my memory. The Canadian Competition Act has a prohibition against
tied selling . Sec 77
“tied selling” means
(a) any practice whereby a supplier of a product, as a condition of
supplying the product (the "tying" product) to a customer, requires
that customer to
(i) acquire any other product from the supplier or the supplier’s
nominee, or
(ii) refrain from using or distributing, in conjunction with the
tying product, another product that is not of a brand or manufacture designated
by the supplier or the nominee, and
(b) any practice whereby a supplier of a product induces a customer to
meet a condition set out in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii) by offering to supply
the tying product to the customer on more favourable terms or conditions if the
customer agrees to meet the condition set out in either of those subparagraphs.
Marginal note:Exclusive dealing and tied selling
(2) Where, on application by the Commissioner or a person granted leave under
section 103.1, the Tribunal finds that exclusive dealing or tied selling,
because it is engaged in by a major supplier of a product in a market or because
it is widespread in a market, is likely to
(a) impede entry into or expansion of a firm in a market,
(b) impede introduction of a product into or expansion of sales of a product
in a market, or
(c) have any other exclusionary effect in a market,
with the result that competition is or is likely to be lessened substantially,
the Tribunal may make an order directed to all or any of the suppliers against
whom an order is sought prohibiting them from continuing to engage in that
exclusive dealing or tied selling and containing any other requirement that, in
its opinion, is necessary to overcome the effects thereof in the market or to
restore or stimulate competition in the market.
I read this as actually being *wider* in scope than the Sherman Act
proscription. This would apply to Lenovo as a supplier to computer stores (as
customers) as well as computer stores selling to end purchasers. It also applies
to MS as a supplier of the OS, to computer OEM's such as Lenovo.
I lust after a Thinkpad X1 but I will be double-damned before I purchase one
with MicroS**t installed.
There are some legal limitations in this scheme. However, if I ever get a round
tuit, I will think about filing a complaint with the Commissioner, with
assistance from the Canadian outpost of the EFF to follow. ( There *is* a
Canadian EFF isn't there? Buried in a snowdrift somewhere near Ottawa? Probably
hosted a Michael Geist's office!)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Surface - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 04 2012 @ 02:49 PM EST
- Logitech - Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 04:12 AM EST
|
|
|
|
