Re: bundling is inherently unfair to consumers

["Norm" <normanmo@clark.net>]

On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 00:27:38 -0500 (EST), Lewis A. Mettler wrote:

>> >    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.
>


     AH..HA!!!  So now you're *FINALLY* getting it (albeit probably
without realizing it yourself).  You've been arguing about how *ALL* or
*ANY* bundling is harmful to consumers (and have even gone as far as to
claim it's against some unwritten 'consumer right'), but now you've
qualified it by stating that it's different when done by a
monopolist...with *THIS* I can agree.  This distinction (a monopolist)
is the defining issue, but to use it as an example for non-monopolistic
products is to engage in what we use to call 'pseudo-deductive
reasoning'.

--
 ...Cheers,

 ...Norm

***********************************************
* Brought to you by OS/2 Warp v4.0 and PMMail *
* For a copy of my PGP key send me a message  *
* with "send pub_key" in the subject          *
***********************************************