Re: bundling (again)

["Lewis A. Mettler" <lmettler@lamlaw.com>]

Joe,

Joe Moore wrote:
> 
> "Lewis A. Mettler" wrote:
> > Let me say it again in simple English, "bundling is inherently unfair to
> > consumers".
> >
> > If for any reason you do not think so or can not understand that obvious
> > observation, then please explain how bundling is fair.  That is
> > precisely what I have been trying to get others to do for the last
> > "whatever period of time".  When NO ONE does that, I begin to assume
> > that bundling is in fact "inherently unfair to consumers".
> 
> Is that all consumers?  If so, then a contradiction can be shown by
> finding a  consumer to whom bundling is fair.  Bundling applications
> with an operating system is fair to those consumers who want the
> functionality of all elements of the bundle.  Therefore, bundling is not
> inherently unfair to all consumers.

The sentence I provided did in fact address ALL consumers not just one.

If you want a Microsoft OS and Microsoft networking you might think it
is okay to force yourself to buy both.  But, which one?

Networking on NT is "different" than networking on Windows 98.

Have you made the blunder of assuming that NO Microsoft shops might want
NT type networking on Windows 98 systems?  Or, Windows 98 type
networking on NT?

There is certainly going to be some consumers who want Windows 98,
Lantastic and Wordperfect combined in a suite.  And, I fully support
that option.

However, you can NEVER assume the entire market will want that
combination nor be happy being forced to buy it.

> 
> Are there consumers for which bundling is unfair?  Yes.  But your
> generalization is not justified.

The general statement is true even if you insist upon buying the only
bundle available.

Why would that be?

Let's assume you happen to like dictator "X".

Dictator "X" is the only name on the ballot.  "X" wins, right?

You have been denied the ability to express your approval of that vote.

Right now, no can claim they picked IE.  No one did.  Everyone was
forced to buy it.

Now, if you are still running the original Windows 95 (without IE) and
then bought a copy of IE, you might be able to convince someone that you
use it because you actually like it.  But, anyone who knows you have no
choice, will just laugh.

> 
> If you mean that "bundling is inherently unfair for some consumers", I
> would say that the fairness is not inherent to the bundling, since it is
> not universal.  So your generalization is not justified.

Sorry.  But, if you can find a specific exception that does not
invalidate the general rule.

The problem is that even those that "might" want it have been in fact
harmed.

Why?  

You have been denied your right to evaluate alternative products and
support your choice.

And, this assumes you even need the product you are forced to buy.

Visual C++ is no different than internet technologies or networking
technologies.  It is also no different than Bayer Aspirins.

If you are forced to buy them, you are in fact harmed.  If you do not
need or want aspirins, you are harmed even more.  

Read the article on the bubblegum deal and tell me why any product is
different than a case of bubblegum (or seven cases as used in that
illustration).

For your click -- > http://www.lamlaw.com/DOJvsMicrosoft/BUBBLE.htm

Once you force the sale, the product is no longer relevant.


-- 
Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer)
lmettler@LAMLaw.com
http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust
trial)