The conditions of use are exactly what Microsoft says they are, nothing more, nothing less. If Microsoft says you pay a full license fee every time you install the product on a hard disk, they have a perfect right to make that demand. It matters not one bit whether you are rich or live in abject poverty.

We are talking license, not copyright, so "fair use" is not a consideration.

Microsoft did not force their monopoly on their customers, their customers enthusiastically supported and desired that monopoly because it simplified their lives. I know this, because I was there, the whole time, from Microsoft Basic on 8" CP/M-80 floppy to Windows XP beta. MICROSOFT HAS A MONOPOLY BECAUSE THEIR CUSTOMERS DEEPLY DESIRE THEM TO HAVE A MONOPOLY.

Microsoft's customers have NO RIGHT WHATEVER to violate the terms imposed by the monopoly they so enthusiastically created. They went into this with their eyes wide open, fully aware of the consequences of monopoly, and would accept no other product. They chanted in unison, "I favor competition, but I will not use the competitor's product".

There were alternatives, there are alternatives. I have run a business for over 17 years without using Microsoft products. If the business is not as successful as I might wish, the reasons for that have nothing whatever to do with not using Microsoft products.

Microsoft has a perfect right to impose any terms or conditidions or costs they feel are to their advantage. Microsoft's customers have a perfect right to accept Microsoft products under those terms or to refuse them, but no right whatever to "interpret" those terms differently. To act in defiance of the terms of license is a violation of the law and merits punishment to the extent of the law.

I fully support this right, and I fully support the right to refuse Microsoft products. What I do actively object to is Microsoft restricting my right of refusal, the right and ability to use other products to do the same job by unfairly leveraging their monopoly to destroy the companies that deliver alternative products to me, but that has nothing to do with their terms of license.

Folks, you made your own bed, and you did it with your eyes open, now sleep in it.

. . were asked by their customers to remove those alternatives and install Microsoft products. I have been an OEM since 1984, so I know of what I speak.

Lets take DR-DOS, for instance. During the DOS/Win3.1 era, most of my machines went out with DR-DOS, because it cost less and was capable of doing things MS-DOS could not (task switching memory management and lots of utilities, and an MSCDEX replacement that loaded in high memory, for instance).

Even those customers making heavy use of DR-DOS features not available in MS-DOS said they would accept not having those features because "MS-DOS would be less trouble".

"Trouble"? Yes. Every time my customers called tech support for some software package, support would actually ridicule them for using non-Microsoft products, and refuse support until this was corrected. Every software publisher had the same attitude, and made that attitude more than clear, "Other than our package, your computer should have only Microsoft software on it".

Of course these software publishers are all dead now, killed by the Microsoft monopoly they did so much to create, because users didn't want the hassle. "Everyone's going to Microsoft, and we don't want to be different. Going with Microsoft will make it easier for us".

eMachines recently was shipping computers with StarOffice installed. They got tired of the customers complaining about having to take it off because they were going to install Microsoft Office, so they don't do that anymore. I saw this happen at my clients. When their "expert" came in, the first thing he'd do is rip off StarOffice and put that magic silver CD with the hand written titles in the drive, because "everybody's using Office, we can't be different".

No, blaming the OEMs is just an attempt to shift the blame from where it belongs. Many OEMs tried alternatives, both operating systems and applications software bundles. The users spoke, and what the users said was "Microsoft and only Microsoft!".

I have no sympathy whatever for users who are now caught in Microsoft's extortion racket. As I said, they went in with their eyes open, knowing the end result of monopoly, and were willing to pay that price. They shouted down anyone who would offer alternatives. They haven't the slightest right to complain about that price or the licensing conditions now.

Microsoft is perfectly within their rights to run enforcement audits and police raids, and I support their right to do so. It's in the license, the license their customer freely accepted. Will these raids help alternatives become more popular? No, they will not. Every article I've read about a Microsoft enforcement action concludes with a quote from the penalized company, and it's always the same. "We're a Microsoft shop and depend on their products. No, we will not be looking at alternatives".

Only where Microsoft moves to restrict choice by unfair business practices should they be punished, and they should be punished very severely for that. They are, after all, a monopoly, even though that's the fault of their customers.

. . . is that I really enjoy explaining Microsoft's terms and conditions of license and the consequences of violating them, and the BSA's snitch programs, and upcoming registration requirements, and "software as a service" to people who have finally started paying attention - and watching the expressions on their faces.

They used to just say, "Yeah, we know you don't like Microsoft, but that's what we're using 'cause that's what everyone else is using.", but they don't say that any more.

I have a nice little flyer entitled Software Licensing I hand out. It's based on my Web article [link|http://www.aaxnet.com/topics/slicense.html|Software Licensing]. When the BSA comes to LA, and those lawyer letters start going out, this will be even more fun.

I bought a computer once too, and it came with DOS. Since it had DOS on it, I was forced to use only Microsoft software. No, I don't think so. I have purchased hundreds of software applications over the last 20 years, but I own only one from Microsoft, Microsoft Basic for CP/M-80 on 8" floppy. Somehow I survived.

The DOS/Windows content of a brand name computer has always been about $40. For a "white box" it's twice that, but you can get the "white box" without DOS/Windows. So for $40 out of a $1,500 purchase 95% of users sacrificed their computing freedom and settled for inferior software? No, that wasn't the reason.

Microsoft's tactic was to make it just a little more trouble to use software from other vendors, knowing that over time "just a little bit" was adequate. Not despite Microsoft's public declaration of monopoly intent, but because of it, people migrated steadily to the "all Microsoft" model.

"It's the safe choice because Microsoft is going to drive everyone else out of business." "At least we know Microsoft will still be around in two years". "Yeah, it's better, but it'll be a little easier if we go with the Microsoft product. "Self fulfilling prophecy.

It was to avoid "just a little more trouble" that users not willingly, but enthusiastically sacrificed their freedom of choice. The more competition eliminated, the fewer decisions to make, so users liked it better and better.

The only time anyone rebelled was when Windows 3.11 came out. It was a release with only one purpose - break Windows compatibility in Red Box OS/2. OS/2 users screamed, and Microsoft backed down, removing the product from the market within just a couple weeks. So totally was it gone from the market they re-used the 3.11 designation a year later.

No, the users had choices. They still have choices (though not nearly so many now), but they choose Microsoft, specifically because Microsoft limits their choices "and makes life easier". They will bitch about the costs a Microsoft monopoly can charge, but they won't do anything about them because they'd rather pay than make decisions or risk "compaibility problems".

We offered a range of operating system (SCO Unix, Esix Unix, Multiuser DOS, DR-DOS, PC-DOS, OS/2, GeoWorks). Most took DOS because it was appropriate for their use. We installed DR-DOS unless specifically asked for MS-DOS (and guess what, DR worked better and cost less).

Actually I don't see any problem with DOS. It was available from several vendors (MS, IBM, DR) and was nothing but a file loader and I/O handler anyway. Most of it was documented (except networking, which Microsoft tried to keep secret).

APPLICATIONS is what I'm talking about. There used to be plenty of viable applications, and no, it wasn't a LOT more trouble to run WordPerfect instead of Word, etc. etc. etc. If Microsoft just controled DOS/Windows, people could easily switch to Linux or OS/2, but that isn't the case. People can't switch because Microsoft holds a monopoly with MS OFFICE, not because they hold a monopoly with Windows.

APPLICATIONS didn't come with the computer, they were, for the most part, purchased as a separate item, even if it was OEM versions that were purchased. USERS selected the applications they ran, not OEMs. Whenever we set up a system, we encouraged users to select non-MS applications, but USERS SELECTED MICROSOFT, so of course we installed it for them.

Now Microsoft is doubling their monopoly with Internet Explorer to make it 10 times as hard to switch. USERS have gone along with this. It wasn't a lot harder to select Netscape or Opera, though it's getting a lot harder because USERS have allowed a new monopoly to develop. It was just a little easier to go along with the ride.

With Concurrent DOS / Multiuser DOS they had a wonderful mass market product but couldn't see it. My MUDOS environment was the absolute envy of every programmer who saw it, and many business people would have loved it too - if they could afford $750 per computer. DR should have sold a single user version for $150 or so. They would have sold millions, and they would have delayed Windows a couple of years at least.

Unfortunately they saw themselves as a low volume provider to VARs and ISVs of a multiuser competitor to Unix. Eventually, a far less capable task switching feature was included in DR-DOS, but it wasn't marketed properly, and the market window had already nearly closed.

Apparently, to qualify as a software company executive, you need to prove you have less marketing sense than a sea slug. Off hand, I can't think of any exceptions to this rule except Microsoft.