*countable infinities only

[Jay Sulzberger]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, Chris Murphy <lists at colorremedies.com> wrote:

> > On Jun 19, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
> 
> > In the United States and Europe there is a large body of statute
> > law, regulatory rulings, and court decisions which say that yes,
> > a large powerful company cannot take certain actions to impede
> > competitors.
> 
> Cite the law and case law that applies to these certain actions
> impeding Fedora (or other Linux). Or please stop repeating this
> claim.
> 
> >  In particular entering into a compact to make
> > Fedora harder to install on every single x86 home computer sold
> > is not allowed.  Or once was not allowed.
> 
> That's not how this works. It's harder to install relative to
> itself, but the same barrier to installing Fedora applies to
> installing Windows. That OEMs then find a way around that to
> pre-install is a function of the high demand for Windows
> pre-installed on hardware by end users. And harder to install
> does not mean anything like impossible (or effectively
> impossible) to install, an alternative.
> 
> >  Recently neither
> > regulatory bodies, nor courts, have enforced these old once
> > settled laws and regulations.
> 
> This large body of law will see that Red Hat had the option to
> have its keys included with new UEFI hardware, making
> installations equally easy or difficult for all parties
> involved, thus the anti-competition claim is rendered
> moot. That Red Hat declined to have its keys included in on the
> basis of unfair advantage to other distributions is an
> unexpected non-competitive behavior from the view of
> competition law.
> 
> Chris Murphy

Chris, rather than me attempting to explain to you the long
history here, I gently suggest that you attempt to study the
statutes and regulations and court decisions with some sympathy
for free software, and indeed, some sympathy for the rule of law.

Thanks, and please forgive me for not answering you in the style
you demand.

oo--JS.