Luke Martinez wrote:
Microsoft's new UEFI Secure Boot system prevents 'unauthorized software' from running on any new computer sold with Windows 8. Making a system that ships with only Micrsoft Windows not being able to boot a copy of Linux or any other operating system. [...] Not only will Microsoft kick out Linux off the computers, they will prevent 'upgrading' of windows versions: creating force obsolescence.
The other point I make (e.g. on the e-tax feedback website) is that Microsoft is not an Australian company and won't act in the best interests of Australia or Australians. I'd downplay the Linux angle -- this is about Microsoft attacking consumers, not Microsoft attacking Linux.
My question is whether this legal, does Microsoft have ability to engage in massively anti-competitive behaviour? Microsoft has been slowly becoming massively anti-competitive: Originally, they have forced you to purchase a computer with windows, with underhanded "high prices" to any vendor that chooses to sell computers with linux, making it unfeasable for OEM's to sell Linux Based Systems.
You should cite the BeOS case here: In 2002, Be Inc. sued^[4] Microsoft claiming that Hitachi had been dissuaded from selling PCs loaded with BeOS, and that Compaq had been pressured not to market an Internet appliance in partnership with Be. BeOS also claimed that Microsoft acted to artificially depress Be Inc.'s initial public offering (IPO). The case was eventually settled out of court^[5] for $23.25 million with no admission of liability on Microsoft's part. -- https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/BeOS On July 27, 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division filed a Competitive Impact Statement that said, in part: "Beginning in 1988, and continuing until July 15, 1994, Microsoft induced many OEMs to execute anticompetitive "per processor" licenses. Under a per processor license, an OEM pays Microsoft a royalty for each computer it sells containing a particular microprocessor, whether the OEM sells the computer with a Microsoft operating system or a non-Microsoft operating system. In effect, the royalty payment to Microsoft when no Microsoft product is being used acts as a penalty, or tax, on the OEM's use of a competing PC operating system. Since 1988, Microsoft's use of per processor licenses has increased."^[23] -- https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Microsoft Likewise On April 3, 2000, a judgment was handed down in the case of United States v. Microsoft,^[34] calling the company an "abusive monopoly";^[35] it settled with the U.S. Department of Justice in 2004.^[13]