Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> My understanding is that some of the relevant legal minds believe that
> Microsoft's "you can disable it" concession forecloses the possibility
> of a successful legal attack on this— the law may care about the
> anti-competativeness of this stuff, but not so much as to care about a
> $99 signing key or some minor install time hurdle. (and the fact that
> fedora is willing to plan this probably justifies this position).
>
> It was arguably a strategic error to blow the whistle in advance and
> give Microsoft time to compromise. Their first attempt was much more
> likely to have created a civil cause of action as well as to have run
> afoul on antitrust grounds. But I can hardly blame anyone for
> trying. Hindsight 20/20 and all that.
If having the option to disable the crap even if it's enabled by default is
sufficient to not be anti-competitive, then they would have done just that
after being sued. So I don't think letting them go the most restrictive
possible way and then sueing would have been any more effective than what
actually happened.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
