It is the job of the OFT in the UK to investigate unfair trading, and if it finds any, it should forward the matter to the Competition Commission. Who will then investigate and recommend what, if any, action is to be taken by the government. The government will then take some form of action. This is if the matter falls under the Fair Trading Act, the recent Competition Act give the OFT power to take action them selves.
First letter to the Office of Fair Trading(OFT)
Their reply
Second letter to the OFT
OFT's second reply
Reboot phoned Geoffrey Kenton at the OFT to get permission to put the OFT's replies on to the internet. He asked for the letters to be faxed to him, which Reboot did, as he could not find them. After consulting other members of the OFT he found that the letters are in the public domain.
Third letter to the OFT
OFT's third reply
After this poor response, I rang the OFT and first Mr Webb mispronounced Microsoft as Microserf. He emphasised that they needed details of anti-competitive practices which are happening at present in the UK.
Fourth Letter to the OFT
On the 5th October 2000 John Webb of the OFT phoned me at about 12.45. He asked to 2 questions about my letter, first had the US court case investigated the giving away of Internet Explorer (IE) for free on CD-ROMs and second was this practice still happening. Reboot informed him that we think the US case did not cover this issue directly, but does cover IE. As to the second question he was told that it is still happening, and that all he had to do was walk into a shop, say a Dixon (Dixon Group is th UK biggest shopping chain seller of computers). After the call Reboot rang them back to tell them of this site, they when to this site immediately after the call finish. The OFT has looked at this site several times since.
OFT's fourth reply page 1, and page 2
On the 5th December 2000 Reboot rang OFT after having yet another unsatisfactory reply. The question put to them (repeatedly) was which critera of Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998 did we not meet. Criterion one is that the company has a dominant market position, IE has over 60 percentage of the world browser market and rising. Criterion two was that the company had abused it dominant position, selling IE below cost is an abuse known as Predation in the act. They repeatedly said they lacked information, but when asked which which critera they did not have enough information on and what information they need they needed, they did not answer. After a while other answers (perhaps truer) appeared. They said that computers is a global market, and so should be left to the USA and EU authorities to take action. When I replied that I did not live in America, and that they [US government] have not done anything in this area for 100 years. I continued that I saw no sign they will change now. The OFT agree with Reboot, then when on to say that as they did not have the power to solve the problem it would a waste of resources taking action. However some action is better than none. At this point Reboot tried to press home the consequences of inaction, by pointing out the loss of jobs in the UK computer industry.