dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
37

FF4m3
@rr.com

FF4m3 to FF4m3

Anon

to FF4m3

Re: Complaint Against MS 'Secure Boot' Filed By EU Linux Group

Microsoft hit with competition complaint over Windows 8 UEFI Secure Boot

Hispalinux lawyer Jose Maria Lancho told Reuters that UEFI Secure Boot was a "de facto technological jail for computer booting systems" and that the feature was "absolutely anti-competitive".

In a blog post, Hispalinux points to what it considers potential breaches of Europe's antitrust laws and consumer laws.

Windows 8 obstructs competition by preventing any rival operating system to boot directly on the hardware, while the choice of the system on the hardware reflected an agreement between hardware manufacturers and Microsoft, not the consumer, it says.

According to Hispalinux, the agreements between Microsoft and hardware makers were prohibited under the European Union's Treaty Article 81.1 and 82, dealing with competition law, and several articles covering European consumer laws.

The European Commission is obliged to investigate any complaint it receives, and take action of any anti-competitive behaviour is found.

ZDNet has not received a response from Microsoft.

FF4m3

FF4m3

Anon

Article 81 of the EC Treaty (ex Article 85):
1. The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the common market: all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market, and in particular those which:

(a) directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions;

(b) limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment;

(c) share markets or sources of supply;

(d) apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;

(e) make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.

2. Any agreements or decisions prohibited pursuant to this Article shall be automatically void.

3. The provisions of paragraph 1 may, however, be declared inapplicable in the case of:

- any agreement or category of agreements between undertakings;

- any decision or category of decisions by associations of undertakings;

- any concerted practice or category of concerted practices,

which contributes to improving the production or distribution of goods or to promoting technical or economic progress, while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benefit, and which does not:

(a) impose on the undertakings concerned restrictions which are not indispensable to the attainment of these objectives;

(b) afford such undertakings the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question.
Article 82 of the EC Treaty (ex Article 86):
Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the common market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the common market insofar as it may affect trade between Member States.

Such abuse may, in particular, consist in:

(a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions;

(b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers;

(c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;

(d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.

JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

JohnInSJ

Premium Member

So which bit does this nuisance lawsuit claim is being infringed?

I see no infringement.