They can stop retail distribution of the software and require anyone wh 
want to use to sign an agreement that stating that the user will not sue, 
engage or support any law suit against Microsoft and that they will use 
only M$ products for all applications. If worded correctly (and I'm sure 
it would be) M$ will end up still distributing the software but by 
subscription only (you will not be able to buy it off the shelf) and the 
users will gove up all legal recourse against Micro$oft. 

Since there are many many companies totally dependent upon M$ for their OS 
but due to licsening issues are thing about opensource for server use this 
will lock them into M$. Just think how it will go. 

IT Manager: "We will be migrating from windows to linux for our server 
needs. However we still want to use windows on the desktop. What type of 
licensing agreement can you give us?" 

M$ rep: "Since the new policy on distribution and licensing have gone into 
effect unless you agree to use our products for everything from server to 
desktop we will not be able to continue our relationship with you. Now 
since in one location alone you have 1200 computers running windows and 
office ## that mean you will have to remove the OS and software unless you 
agree to keep using our product on your servers. And in case you were 
thinking of renewing the licsense migrating your whole organzation to 
another OS over the course of the license period let me point out clause 
152. It states that the use of any other OS or application provided by 
another software publisher will void the licsense and immediately require 
you to discontinue use of our product(s). This is enforce by various 
software agents we have programmed into each application and the 
unannounce audits (up to once a week) that you will agree to by the new 
licsening agreement."

Or for the home market they will just tell manufacturers of systems 
that they can sell windows preinstalled and the end users that they will 
be required to allow the computer to have some sort of access to M$ so 
that the OS can update itself on a regular basis. This way if someone is 
dual booting another os and windows M$ can cause windows to disable it 
self and possibly even encrypt the hard drive. Again all under agreement 
just to use the OS since it will no longer be available on the shelf. 
Unfortunately they will be a vast majority that will agree to this either 
because they don't care, don't know any better or do not have a choice in 
the matter.

> And companies want to do business with someone that unprofessional?  
> 
> Whatever . . . 
> 
> 
> 
> Lee Einer wrote:
> > 
> > Hi, All-
> > 
> > The funny thing is that anyone
> > would take seriously Microsoft's
> > threat to stop distributing the
> > Windows OS. They just can't afford
> > to do that. Sales of MS
> > applications depend on the MS
> > Windows monopoly. If Microsoft were
> > to stop distributing Windows, their
> > whole house of cards would come
> > tumbling down.
> > 
> > This is another example of the kind
> > of brash, bullying BS that inflamed
> > the first judge on the antitrust
> > case...
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > Lee Einer
> > 
> > http://members.cox.net/appealsman/
> > ________________________________________________
> > See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
> > 
> > PLUG-discuss mailing list  -  PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
> ________________________________________________
> See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
> 
> PLUG-discuss mailing list  -  PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>