Microsoft, Google, Anti-trust
bofh at stremler.net
Tue Mar 2 15:00:00 PST 2010
begin quoting Todd Walton as of Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 03:57:28PM -0600:
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 9:53 AM, SJS <bofh at stremler.net> wrote:
> > We can't *make* advertisers and content providers to deal with Microsoft,
> > but we can tell 'em the "exclusive" clauses in the contracts are illegal,
> > unenforcable, and if they ignore 'em and get penalized, the full weight of
> > the government handslap will come down on Google.
> What you're saying is that we can legislate one person's contracts but
> not someone else's. By what principle do you draw that line?
No, I'm fine with doing this with all contracts in general, modulo those
that have a special exemption beforehand (e.g., copyright contracts, and
even that I'm not entirely convinced the exemption is worthwhile).
I further think that attempting to insert illegal clauses into contracts
should result in penalties. All these contracts where you waive your
"right to sue"? Bogus. And they should stop.
Contracts aren't for getting around the law. You can't sell your firstborn
into slavery because somebody wrote it into a contract. Doesn't matter if
you signed in blood and have been paid a million dollars... that contract
provision is illegal and unenforcable.
It's like weights and measures. You don't get to invent your own liter.
More information about the KPLUG-List