Re: bundling is inherently unfair to consumers

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

Eric,

Raw sewage works too.

The identity of the bundled product does not matter.

That is why Judge Jackson made no specific finding that either IE or
Navigator was superior or best.  The quality of the product is not
relevant.  The relative quality of the product is not relevant.

Only the forced sale is relevant.

If you did not buy the bubblegum that means you choose either #2 (switch
your OS) or #3 (never upgrade again).  Unless, of course, you do not use
the consumer monopoly product in which case bundling IE has no impact
upon you personally.

"Eric M. Hopper" wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 12:24:34AM -0500, Lewis A. Mettler wrote:
> > Eric,
> >
> > "Eric M. Hopper" wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 10:55:41PM -0500, Lewis A. Mettler wrote:
> > > > >     <raising my hand>  Exception.
> > > >
> > > > Send your $100.  I'll forward the software you just bought.
> > >
> > >         Well, tell me what's in the package, and I might very well do
> > > that.  Heck, if it gets you to stop harping on this silly point, it'll
> > > be worth whatever you send me, so what's your address?
> >
> > The point proves your refusal to give up your right to pick and choose
> > your own products.
> >
> > Did you buy the bubblegum too?
> 
>         No, because I don't _want_ the bubblegum, and I don't want the
> other product enough to take the bubblegum with it.  If you really
> wanted to make your point here, you should've had it bundled with half a
> ton of raw sewage.
> 
>         Bundling Windows with half a ton of raw sewage is wrong.
> Bundling Red Hat with it wouldn't be because you could go get Debian if
> you wanted.  Bundling it with Mac OS or Solaris is pretty iffy, since
> they're both monopoly products in their market space.  Bundling it with
> LANtastic would be downright stupid because nobody wants LANtastic
> anyway.  (I had the great misfortune of being a LANtastic network
> administrator once).
> 
>         I'm perfectly happy to agree with you that bundling a product
> with a monopoly product is generally harmful, even to lots of die-hard
> Windowz users.
> 
>         I'm not willing to agree that bundling in general is harmful.
> In the tire case, even if they 'gave away' meat with their tires year
> round, it'd be perfectly OK because I could go buy someone else's tires.

Apparently you are not a vegetarian.  And, apparently you do not
practice a religion that prevents you from eating meat?

But, you point is valid.  If you do not have to buy those tires, you are
not required to buy the burger meat either.

But, what you fail to see is that if the tire company does not have a
monopoly, they will be very unlikely to bundle anything with the tires. 
Come to think of it, I have never ever seen free toys or meat bundled
with tires.

The point being you can not use a non-monopoly analogy to justify
illegal monopoly acts.  Some people do hoping to fool consumers.  But,
it looks pretty silly and stupid.

> 
>         I, in fact, am willing to buy whatever software you have
> bundled, or even a case of bubblegum.  I'll buy it as long as it comes
> bundled with you shutting up about that stupid, meaningless point.  Of
> course, that is illegal monopoly bundling since it's a product only you
> can produce, but I don't even care about that right now.

Please read the findings of facts and the proposed conclusions of law in
the antitrust case.

This is not a meaningless point.  It is the whole point of the entire
antitrust case.

How do you think Microsoft gets hundreds of millions of consumers to buy
IE when at one point 80% or so preferred another brand?

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