>
Are you saying that "US Copyright law", by default, is protecting MS' rights re: Fox and Linux ? I don't see that.
>

Copyright owners have exclusive rights in how their work is "displayed". It is not just copyright - it is also contract law. Windows subsidizes the royalty free runtimes. If you deploy to windows - you can use them. If you deploy to something else - you cannot use them. To be allowed to do so would create a free-rider problem - which cuts against some of the anti-trust arguments Whil and others have made.


>Or are you saying the EUL covers it ? I don't see that either ...
>
>Care to be more specific ?

What the EULA ultimately covers is a function of how MS will act if an objectional infringment occurs. I think the EULA is pretty clear. Taking a common-sense look at things - and knowing that Windows in reality subsidizes things - it is a pretty simple issue.

>(In your "absence", these points were hashed over numerous times in this forum. The main observations were that MS has been particularly vague re: Fox and Linux because (a) "tying" Fox to Windows is monopolistic (b) their EUL which states that "Fox MAY only run on Windows" (sic) is sufficiently vague enough as to be unenforceable, at least in the manner in which you choose to interpret it.)
>

There is no tying. And FWIW - even if there was tying - that alone is not determinative of whether something amounts to a monopoly. Keep in mind that the per se rule only applies to agreements that fix prices via an agreement or some horizontal or vertical restraint.

The classic tying case was IBM. In that case, if you bought a mainframe - you had to buy their punch cards. It was nothing more than a roundabout way of price fixing.

In this case, MS has a product which is subject to a license - as all software is.

What somebody needs to do is infringe the copy right and assert an affirmative defense of copyright misuse. In other words, MS cannot enforce its copyright while it is comitting some sort of anti-trust violation. I thought Whil would have done this - but to date - I have not seen anything. If people really believe in the "cause" they will do something like this.

As far as the may vs. shall distinction - again - somebody need to test that. Somebody needs to get a high-profile Linux job - and deploy a Fox app - or better yet a .NET app under Wine. Then, inform MS and wait for the fallout.

Or...go to court and get a declaratory judgment. At that point - MS will have no choice but to go to court. It would bring closure.



>>The fact is, Windows DOES subsidize Fox. That said - MS could very well charge for the right to distribute. Given that it is royalty free on Windows - it is clear that Windows subsidizes that benefit of royalty free distribution.
>
>I don't see that either (subsidization): I can pick up a copy of VB.NET or C# for $100, while a new license for VFP 8.0 can run me $800.
>

Entirely different markets. MS has to charge more for Fox in order to keep it around.


>In addition, the VFP team (which consists of a handful of members), is trying its best to crank out as many "versions" as possible ... They've admitted as much that this is one of the "benefits" of not being tied to .NET.
>

OK....


>
No one really knows how many VFP licences are out there, but even assuming some ridiculous low number like 10,000 "VFP 8" new/upgrade licenses at 300 - $800 a pop and a "handful" of VFP "engineers", the return on investment seems sufficient enough to make your argument re: "subsidies" rather specious.
>

Don't forget that a good chunk of people get VFP via MSDN. The one thing you have to remember is that MS can charge whatever it wants for Fox. There is nothing illegal about that. At a certain price point - demand will go to zero.

>Granted, that Office and .NET are (probably) generating higher profit margins for MS (tho .NET could very well be a loss leader), I don't see any evidence (based on the numbers) that the Fox line is operating in the red. "Marketing costs" (howl) are certainly not a problem.
>

Oh no...if Fox were losing money - the lights would be turned off.


>
And if your whole argument on "subsidies" is based on the premise that MS is using VFP runtimes to sell more Windows licenses (on the assumption that Users are buying more PCs, and therefore more Windows OS) in order to run our wunderbar apps, then I say: Not until I get a piece of the action ...
>

No - selling windows allows people to distribute - royalty free - their applications.

It is just my take on things. To think VFP drives windows is to look at things backwards. The platform drives applications (.NET, Office, VFP, SQL Server, MSDN, etc). That is why the platform is so important to MS. The platorm touches everything. Gerry - there are computerized sewing machines that have the label "Powered by Windows XP". If you want perspective - that is where you will find it.