Re: bundling is inherently unfair to consumers

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

Ethical,

Ethical at One of One dot Net wrote:

<snip, material clipped considered in a previous post>

>     In summary, it is simply not possible to say _truthfully_
>     that bundling is _always_ harmful to consumers.  If Mr. Mettler
>     persists, in the face of real-world examples, to insist that
>     bundling _always_ is harmful to consumers, than there is a highly
>     technical term for what he is doing.  It is called "lying," or,
>     sometimes, "lying through his teeth."  In that case, the jury is
>     instructed to weigh the testimony in accordance with the pattern
>     now well established.

See findings of facts related to consumer harm caused by suppression of
innovative products from the market as a direct result of Microsoft
Corporation bundling IE.

In fact, Judge Jackson concluded as fact that bundling was harmful to
consumers and competitors alike.  His findings made notice of no
exceptions and neither have I.

Does this author suggest that Judge Jackson is also lying?

Judge Jackson was the Tryer of fact and he concluded that IE bundled
with the OS in fact harmed all consumers.

On this list, I have tried very hard to break down consumers into
appropriate classes.

1) those who do not want the bundled product at all
2) those who might want the product but prefer another brand
3) those who might want the product but do not know which brand they
prefer
4) and those who like Bill Gates, know they want IE.

If anyone wants to classify consumers in such a way to find a group that
is not harmed by bundling of IE, then the burden is upon them to clearly
identify that class and prove the lack of harm.

Judge Jackson saw no need to classify all consumers into groups that
were harmed and those who were not.  He simply concluded that for a
number of reasons, all consumers were harmed.

I happen to agree.  Read the findings of facts if you are still
confused.

Furthermore, it is not lying nor lying through your teeth to openly
present a premise and specifically ask that the premise be challenged. 
So, I will ask again.

Identify the class of consumers that you claim are not being harmed by
the bundling of IE.

Bill Gates is.  ISVs who write exclusively for Windows are. 
Knowledgeable developers everywhere are.  Intelligent consumers
everywhere are.  In fact, anyone who has the ability to download IE the
day before they buy Windows 98 is harmed directly and financially on the
very day they buy Windows 98.

We do not know the amount of financial harm.  Microsoft Corporation is
ambiguous about it.  But, they did tell Compaq specifically that the
higher price of Windows was due to added features such as IE.  Ballmer
also publicly scoffed at the idea that Microsoft would give away free
software.  And, I should point out that Judge Jackson found that IE was
free when distributed separately from Windows but was unable to make any
finding as to the cost of IE when sold bundled with the OS. 

In fact, Microsoft Corporation has refused to argue a price for IE
despite the fact a normal price for IE would provide a simple defense
against predatory prices for that product.

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