[bruce511]

Microsoft was a big player, and certainly had clout, but the word "force" is inaccurate.

To answer the grand-parent-post, they got a license per CPU because the retailers _agreed_ to that model.

MS would argue that every cpu sold ran an MS operating system (legal or illegal) so licensing the CPU made it cheaper for legit users (ie lower price) and pirate users ultimately paid as well.

This left other OSs out in the cold but the number of actual legit users installing something else was a rounding error.

Shops could _choose_ to just sell dos or windows when the customer wanted it, but they paid a higher price via that model, so few (if any) shops went that way.

MS certainly played lots of dirty tricks but OEM pricing is not really dirty, it's just sensible business when you have that sort of market dominance and your software is pirated so heavily.

[nix23]

>retailers _agreed_ to that model.

I fix it for you:

Had to agree otherwise not a single Windows license for your company in your lifetime for a reasonable price anymore.

[bruce511]

That's not an unusual business position. You see it everyday with places that sell coke or Pepsi but not both.

That the choice for retailers is an obvious one is neither here nor there. They had a choice and clearly they wanted to sell Windows, so the choice is obvious.

You might not like their choice, you might not like Windows, but this is bog standard business stuff.

[eesmith]

Companies in a monopoly position are more limited in what they are allowed to do.

Something that might seem like a usual business practice to a small fish like you or me, might be illegal for a monopoly.

Microsoft's lawyers tried using your argument to get partial summary judgement in Caldera v. Microsoft. They lost, and they lost the appeal. Here's Caldera's claim, quoting the summary in the US District Court judgement:

> In addition to its improper vaporware and FUD campaigns, Caldera alleges that Microsoft also forced OEMs away from DR DOS 5.0 by what plaintiff refers to as the "licensing triple-whammy," which refers to (1) per processor licenses, (2) minimum commitments subject to forfeiture, and (3) increased license duration. Per processor licensing agreements required an OEM to pay Microsoft a royalty on every machine the OEM shipped regardless whether the machine contained MS-DOS or a different operating system. This is in contrast to a per system licensing agreement, which required OEMs to pay a royalty on only those computers shipped with MS-DOS installed. The use of per processor agreements is argued by plaintiff to be Microsoft's most effective single weapon against DR DOS. Plaintiff alleges that DRI had no realistic chance to license DR DOS to OEMs under a per processor license with Microsoft. It would make no sense for an OEM to install DR DOS when it had already paid for MS-DOS on every machine. Microsoft contends that OEMs were free to depart from the per processor licensing scheme, and that price differentials between license types were "relatively minor." However, plaintiff points to the depositions of several OEM executives who testified that even slight price differentials between the per processor and per system licenses meant that only the per processor license was financially viable.

This case was specifically about illegal use of monopoly power, which is why you can read:

> By 1988 Microsoft had obtained a monopoly position in the DOS market. For purposes of the present motions, Microsoft does not dispute the contention that it has such a monopoly in the operating systems market.

Without that assumption they could not have gotten summary judgement.

[trulyme]

> This left other OSs out in the cold but the number of actual legit users installing something else was a rounding error.

Isn't that the whole point? They forced the OEMs to drop other OSs by abusing their monopoly position. If this is not dirty I don't know what is. But yes, MS has plenty of other dirty moves in their past. I don't trust them one bit, even with their new clothes on.