Singapore must take the view that the global ‘black screen’ measure compulsorily imposed by Microsoft constitutes an act that falls within the domain of anti-competitive practice as envisaged by the Competition Act 2004. The question is whether a rightful owner be allowed by law to obtain unfair competitive edge via contractual advantage to the detriment of an innocent buyer/individual/users ?

Although the Copyright Act 2005 and the Computer Misuse Act 1990(CMA) guarantee certain legal rights to the owner, they do not allow the rightful owner carte-blanche freedom to embark on anti-competitive measures with a view to protect his rights to the prejudice-and/or at the expense of consumer rights.

No doubt section 7(1) of CMA’s “without authority or lawful excuse” is a stark reminder to all, but it is by no means an insurmountable wall of defence for Microsoft. If it can be shown that Microsoft themselves had in fact implemented the black screen ‘without proper authority and without lawful excuse’, the imposition of the black screen would be declared as unconstitutional and illegal not only under the Computer Misuse Act but also under section 47(2)(a) and(b) of the Competition Act 2004 pertaining to abuse of dominant position :

47(1) Subject to section 48, any conduct on the part of one or more undertakings which amounts to the abuse of a dominant position in any market in Singapore is prohibited. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), conduct may, in particular, constitute such an abuse if it consists in :

(a) predatory behaviour towards competitors; (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. In any event, the last remedy against the black screen can be found in the Law of Restitution.

The legitimacy of the black screen (and the Windows Genuine Advantage tool) may be tested in Court-if not in Singapore- it may be initiated in the EU or Australia. The black screen is not the only example of an unfair measure enforced by Microsoft in its global anti-competitive blocking strategy.

……………………….
Jeong Chun phuoc.
Lecturer-in-Law.
Jeongphu@yahoo.com

Singapore must take the view that the global ‘black screen’ measure compulsorily imposed by Microsoft constitutes an act that falls within the domain of anti-competitive practice as envisaged by the Competition Act 2004. The question is whether a rightful owner be allowed by law to obtain unfair competitive edge via contractual advantage to the detriment of an innocent buyer/individual/users ?

Although the Copyright Act 2005 and the Computer Misuse Act 1990 guarantee certain legal rights to the owner, they do not allow the rightful owner carte-blanche freedom to embark on anti-competitive measures with a view to protect his rights to the prejudice-and/or at the expense of consumer rights.

No doubt section 7(1) of CMA’s “without authority or lawful excuse” is a stark reminder to all, but it is by no means an insurmountable wall of defence for Microsoft. If it can be shown that Microsoft themselves had in fact implemented the black screen ‘without proper authority and without lawful excuse’, the imposition of the black screen would be declared as unconstitutional and illegal not only under the Computer Misuse Act but also under section 47(2)(a) and(b) of the Competition Act 2004 pertaining to abuse of dominant position :

47(1) Subject to section 48, any conduct on the part of one or more undertakings which amounts to the abuse of a dominant position in any market in Singapore is prohibited. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), conduct may, in particular, constitute such an abuse if it consists in :

(a) predatory behaviour towards competitors; (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; or In any event, the last remedy against the black screen can be found in the law of restitution.

The legitimacy of the black screen (and the Windows Genuine Advantage tool) may be tested in Court-if not in Singapore- it may be initiated in the EU or Australia. The black screen is not the only example of an unfair measure enforced by Microsoft in its global anti-competitive blocking strategy.

……………………….
Jeong Chun phuoc.
Lecturer-in-Law.
Jeongphu@yahoo.com

watch space

Interesting the assumption that these people in fact pirated windows.
I have a steady supply of XP users that have bought and paid for XP, that
suddenly fail validation for NO APPARENT REASON.

Microsoft as Judge Jury and executioner .. and NO due process.
Your assumption is just as malignant.

Trusted computing is bullshit as long as no one can trust the ‘watchers’.
Who keeps M$ honest.
What process do THEY use.
Where’s their checks and balances.

Those who assume that everyone is a thief usually feel that way because they themselves are
dishonest.

like how? they not stopping people from saying what they want. people can still use another os or mac and so on

stupid ass comment jon like usual

The fact that those people would not have bought it anyway, perhaps, due to the price is totally irrelevant. It remains the case that they didn’t pay Microsoft for their product, so Microsoft don’t owe them SQUAT! I’d really like to see a million pirates try to sue Microsoft over this. Yeah right.

Makes a good case for using Linux and avoiding DRM, dontcha think?

M$ Windoze is bloated, buggy, anti-consumer-rights, overpriced, and sold by a convicted monopolist.