Re: bundling is inherently unfair to consumers

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

Eric,

"Eric M. Bennett" wrote:
> 
> 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.

If the tires only come with a pound of beef, then it would be a bundle.

And, of course, all vegetarians would really complain.

However, the real fallacy in the example is caused by the fact that the
tire company does not have a monopoly at all.  No tire company does. 
And, as I recall, the example did not say that tires were only sold with
the pound of beef.  If it is only a come-on then that might be
advertising.

However, it is highly deceitful to suggest that a pound of beef
occasionally offered as a bonus for auto tires is in any way related to
the bundling of IE with the OS.

The pound of beef did not cost half a billion in R&D.
The pound of beef was not offered to drive the local food store out of
business.
The pound of beef does not remove the demand for other meats on the
marketplace.
The pound of beef is not 70% or so of the cost of the bundled.
And, no one is giving away a pound of beef to all comers in unlimited
supply just for the asking.

Deceit does take many forms.

> 
> 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.

Please classify those consumers you think are not harmed.

I have done so.  Just in case you have forgotten already.

1) those consumers who do not want nor need the product bundled (meat,
beans, IE or candy)
2) those consumers who might want it but want their own choice (steaks
or Navigator)
3) those consumers who might want the hamburger but got their's free the
day before
4) those who have no idea what they want but find meat harmful to them

If anyone is going to suggest that someone or somebody is not harmed,
then it is their burden to classify that customer or group of customers.

Read the little story on Bill Gates.  He is harmed.  Anyone who can
download the day before is in fact financially harmed.

So.  My premise remains proven.

Even Judge Jackson went so far as to find that innovative products were
suppressed and that has harmed consumers.

No one on this should be so stupid as to not understand that concept.

I have explained how many classes are harmed.  Others simply conclude
(falsely it seems).

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