On 0, Klaus Imgrund <claus.imgrund@terra.com.br> wrote: > On Thu, 03 Oct 2002 17:06:04 -0500 > Alex Malinovich <demonbane@the-love-shack.net> wrote: [snip] > > Unfortunately, I think that MS could make a justifiable claim that > > they are losing money. X-Boxen are sold below cost for maximum market > > pentration. The idea being that those costs and more will be recouped > > through game sales. If the systems in question are not being used to > > run games, and if no games are purchased for them, this would cause a > > loss to MS. A judge who's more concerned about business than plain old > > right and wrong (and those are too common for my liking) would > > probably rule in MS's favor. But, much like everyone else who has > > replied on this thread, IANAL. > > > > -Alex > > > Let me see if I got that right, > > I sell you 100.- bucks for 80.- then I sue you if you don't buy any > other of my products that make up for my loss - all I got to do after > that is to find some judge and attorney that are willing to take up the > case? If that is really the case now in the U.S. something is slightly > more than screwed up. If somebody sells a product below cost it > shouldn't be the responsibility of the justice system and finally the > taxpayer to secure that there are no losses. If somebody sells a product > that is not secure - same story. If somebody leaves his car unlocked > with the keys in the ignition and the thing gets stolen nobody is going > to pay for it. Why are there other rules for M$ ??? IANAL but this sort of thing is certainly disallowed in Australia by the Trade Practices Act. It falls under the definition of 'preferential selling' or something of that sort. -- Tom Cook Information Technology Services, The University of Adelaide "Intellectual freedom is not the freedom to believe anything, but the freedom to believe only the truth." - Dr. John Stott Get my GPG public key: https://pinky.its.adelaide.edu.au/~tkcook/tom.cook-at-adelaide.edu.au
Attachment:
pgpkQIXOx_7Y3.pgp
Description: PGP signature