Re: bundling is inherently unfair to consumers

["Eric M. Bennett" <ericb@pobox.com>]

T. Guilbert wrote:

>    Now, it may be argued that Les Schwab _could_ sell the tires
>    alone at a lower price, and thus consumers are harmed by the
>    higher-than-competition prices at which Les Schwab generally
>    sells.  That argument would ignore the indisputable fact that
>    (mainly because of unsurpassed service) Les Schwab is able
>    to sell the same tires at the same prices about 50 weeks of
>    the year _without_ the beef promotion.  In other words, if you
>    argue that the consumer is harmed, then you must refute the
>    free and open market forces upon which capitalism is supposedly
>    based.
>
>    In summary, it is simply not possible to say _truthfully_
>    that bundling is _always_ harmful to consumers.


I expect Lewis will clarify this, but my impression is that when he 
says "bundling" he means force-bundling.

And not that I really want to support his argument, but there is the 
case where your tire blows out, you have to drive on a long trip the 
next week, and so you *have* to buy a tire during the week when Les 
Schwab is bundling with beef if you want the "unsurpassed service" 
this vendor offers.  But this only shows that one consumer (who had a 
blowout) was harmed in a small way, whereas Lewis has claimed that 
bundling hurts *all* consumers.

--
Eric Bennett / ericb@pobox.com / emb22@cornell.edu  www.pobox.com/~ericb/
Cornell University, Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "ask".
- Bill Gates, in his deposition for the U.S. vs. Microsoft lawsuit