I've been away from UT for a couple of weeks but I see the conversation went on without me! ;-). Below is a legal analysis of the UCITA agreement. See Article 2B, section 102(a) 20, which details the limiting of discussions of software performance without company approval. It has all but killed objective software comparisons, turning them into nothing more than PR puff pieces. MS lawyers, pushed hardest for this clause and, if memory serves me correctly, contributed the most to its writing. I haven't purchased a MS software product since I adopted Linux as my OS (removing Winxx from my system) on May 7th, of 1997.
I do recall, however, reading comments and excepts from various Microsoft licenses that restrict "use of the information or informational rights" (leagalese for 'you can't compare notes with someone else about how this software performs or anything else").

http://www.consumerlaw.org/ucita/kanernlj_1.html

James Glieck had an interesting comment about licenses two years ago, and mentioned this provision is serveral other products being marketed at the time.
http://www.around.com/agree.html

Then there is MS's 'confidentiality' requirement (not the non-disclosure stuff, but restrictions on what you can say about MS products). These are the things that were mentioned in the trial and were denied until the evidence at the trial brought them out. The punishment for saying naughty things about MS software quality and/or performance and/or MS business practices was higher prices or unavailability.

http://www.microsoft.com/india/licensing/mba.asp

An aside. It amazes me how MS has used the term 'MBA' to surround some of its software apps, like Excel, with an illusion to the MBA business degree. It is sort of like the DVD crackers putting out lots of web pages with CSS in them to create lots of misdirections for the search engines the lawyers are using trying to track where folks are accessing their 'intellectual property rights'.

I never trust a company who tries to circumvent my 1st Amendment Free Speach rights. What would you think if automobiles started included non-disclosure terms in their sales agreements that prevented you from mentioning that their car is a lemon, even if they know in advance that they sold you a piece of junk?
JLK


>>>>I also think it's funny now they ported the JetDirect management software to linux, and it runs better than the native NT version. =)
>>>>
>>>>j
>>>
>>>Well that's all conjecture. Unless you can produce a URL where this has been tested.
>>>
>>>If I had to guess I would say they did it because it works and it's cheaper. That's just my opinion of course.
>>
>>Not too much conjecture. Now you will find few, if any at all, benchmarks between JetDirect under NT vs under Linux in countries under the legal influence of Microsoft for once simple reason: the EULA forbids it. But in the remaining countries, where MS lawyers are ignored, you will find many. Now, if you can read Spanish or German or Russian, etc., you can find out all about it.
>>
>>I don't object too much to MS trying to control what is said about it's products, especially in comparison testing. We are well aware of how MS had tried to fudge benchmarks in several recent testing episodes, so if they are willing to play dirty I can see where they would think others would be as equally willing. ('To a crook, everyone else is a crook') In my opinion.
>
>What are you talking about?
>
>I've read MS licenses and do not recall any saying that you are prohibited of talking about their products. That's like saying if I buy a MS product I forfeit free speech rights. In fact, I just read the license agreement for Windows NT workstation and IE5 and it does not say anything about benchmarks. Benchmark numbers about MS products are in every other IT magazine these days.
>
>Sounds like more conjecture to me..