>There is no tying argument - but for the reason you have choice. Illegal tying arises when you have to use 1 product in conjunction with antoher product. That is not the issue in this case. I know Whil has tried to make this argument - but it is an argument without merit.

Funny that MS used "in conjunction with" in their legal reply back to Whil. here is their exact wording [emphasis added]:

Visual FoxPro was designed and tested for use in creating applications that run on the Microsoft Windows platform; the same applies to the components that are provided to developers for redistribution with Visual FoxPro-based applications. If a developer wishes to distribute the Visual FoxPro runtime with an application, the runtime may only operate in conjunction with a Microsoft Windows platform. As with any contract, you should seek your own legal counsel’s advice when interpreting your rights and obligations under the Visual FoxPro End User License Agreement.

>In terms of anti-trust law, somebody is going to have make an argument as to how this scnenario hurts competition under Section 1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. I am not sure you can even get to the tying argument unless you can make out a case for anti-competitive behavior. Apparently, Whil fancies himself an armchair lawyer - as evidence by what he has said. Also, the armchair lawyering is catching based on a session at Whilfest that Ted is giving. A word to the wise, be careful what you take from that session. Last I heard, Ted is not a lawyer and what he is doing in that session comes VERY close to practicing law without a license.

As I see it, they [MS] are forcing developers who use MS development tools can only deploy on Windows systems. While this may not seem right or fair, it may still be legal. Whether or not anyone is harmed could be very subjective in this case and danged difficult to prove since they issued such an ambiguous response.

>Why should MS be so absolute. The fact is, if Whil where really serious about the whole VFP/Linux issue, he would openly challenge MS - back them into a corner - and force them to send a cease and desist letter. At this point, there is no controversey. MS has not told anybody they can't do it.
>
> ... snip ...
>
>One thing you could do is go to court and get a declaratory judgment. That would make you the plaintiff and would force MS to respond. AFAIK, Whil has not done this. It begs the question of why he has not. Again, if he were really serious about this issue, and if he believed he were right - he would get a declaratory judgment. When push comes to shove, he is not going to shell out the bucks to do it. I would be surprised if he does. You never know...

With a $40 billion slush fund, I would not want to take on that daunting task either. After what would surely be many years of legal battles and court appearances, even if you won, your life would most likely be in ruins. No individual or group of individuals could take MS to court on that. It would have to be another class-action suit involving State AGs.

>>>>Are you sure about the license for each workstation? I thought the runtime could be used???
>>>>
>
>I am positive. If you could deploy the runtimes to a linux box, there would be no issue.

AFAIK, you can do this without the Windows Installer. Just copy your app and the runtime files. Now, how legal this is or how well the App runs is another story. The legal question here is can MS force you to use their Installer technology to deploy your apps? I think not. Otherwise, 3rd party vendors who do not use the Installer could face legal action by MS.

>I have a list of questions for Whil a mile long - but unless I confront him in public - he would just ignore them. If anybody is interested, I would be happy to load them up with a bunch of questions for his next user group meeting - whereever that is.

Too late for us, but you have our upcoming meeting schedule, so pick a date and let me know. Many of our members keep asking me when am I going to get you to one of our meetings. We have some quite assertive members who will definitely ask questions and debate many of these questions as they did when Whil presented. Of course, none of us being lawyers or well versed legally, we were not well equipped to ask questions that you might ask.