>> Copyright owners have exclusive rights in how their work is "displayed". It is not just copyright - it is also contract law.

Owners may have the right to dictate how their work is "displayed", but they have to be clear about it. MS hasn't made this clear.

>> 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.

You keep saying that "Windows subsidizes ..." as if it were a fact. Perhaps our definitions differ but I still don't see the economics to justify that stance.

>> Taking a common-sense look at things - and knowing that Windows in reality subsidizes things - it is a pretty simple issue.

"Knowing that Windows ... subsidizes" ? I don't "know" that.

>> 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.

Doesn't sound much different from that of a user who purchases a VFP "app" and then "has to buy" Windows.

>> 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.

On that we can agree.

>> 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.

IMO, Whil could have (at least) continued his pursuits in the interests of "educational purposes", which IS protected by "fair use".

>>>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.

That was my point: Where is the "subsidy" ?

>> 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.

Actually, people who use Fox and buy it via MSDN are actually paying the premium price (IMO). If they were like me (who bought through MSDN), the other "tools" played a minor role, and MSDN was more of a convenience than a bargain. Instead of buying a Universal subscription every year, I think I would have been further ahead buying it every 2 or 3 years instead.

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

Right. Where's the "subsidy" ?

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

I'm sure MS would like to think so, but where we seems to differ is whether MS has actually managed to protect that "right".