Re: bundling is inherently unfair to consumers

[Wandered Inn <esoteric@denali.atlnet.com>]

Norm wrote:
> 
> 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'.

Why did it take this long to get this out of him?

> 
> --
>  ...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          *
> ***********************************************

--
Until later: Geoffrey		esoteric@denali.atlnet.com

It should be illegal to yell "Y2K" in a crowded economy.
	-- Larry Wall, creator of the programming language Perl