Burden of no-harm upon those who claim it does not exist

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

Bundling is not only inherently unfair to consumers but also harms them
all.

For those who find this conclusion repulsive to their financial
interests I suggest that the burden to prove that any group of consumers
are not so harmed is upon them.

Please read the findings of facts as published in the Microsoft
antitrust case and explain why the group of customers you claim not to
be harmed are somehow skipped by the following findings.

Read the following paragraphs: #172, 173, 174, 197, 198, 379, 409, 411
and 412.

If you are going to conclude contrary to the findings of facts, you have
an enormous burden of proof.

Clearly Microsoft and its lawyers tried very hard to disprove the above
findings and they failed miserably.

It sounds to me like the above phase has been proven true in a court of
law.

Concepts of fairness and consumer harm are not elements of the antitrust
charges.  However, the findings of fact do support directly the above
premise.

If you want to conclude to the contrary, prove it.  Describe the class
that escapes harm as found above and explain why.

Also read the "Bill Gates harm" article.  

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