Re: bundling is inherently unfair to consumers

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

Wandered,

Wandered Inn wrote:
> 
> 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?

I have always distinguished between suites and bundles.

I have always distinguished between illegal acts and those acts which
are legal but unfair and harmful.

When I use the term legal or illegal I mean legal or illegal.

When I use the term fair or unfair I mean fair or unfair.

When I use the term harm or harmless I mean harm or harmless.

You can go back as far into the archives as you want.  You can read my
entire web site if you want.  It is only a couple of hundred thousand
words.

It is not pseudo-deductive reasoning at all.  Some things are legal and
some are not.  Some things are fair and some are not.  Some things are
harmful and some are not.

The same criteria does not apply to all three standards.

As for the antitrust suit, harm to competitors is the primary test.

As for the consumer suits, harm to consumers is the primary test.

Fairness is more difficult to pin down.  But, consumers will deem any
deal "unfair" if they can not buy the products they themselves decide
they need or must purchase any product them themselves decide they do
not need.

Bundling prevents the consumer from exercising their right to pick and
choose.  And, for that reason bundling is inherently unfair to
consumers.  Legal or not is a separate issue.  Harm is a separate issue
and must be proven if you want to recover damages.  Bill Gates could
prove he is financially harmed by the bundling of IE.  Could Microsoft
deny Bill's claim because he is a stock-holder and his harm in regard to
buying IE when he already has a copy is offset?  The answer is "no". 
His possible share of profits as a share holder are not used to offset
his harm as a consumer.  Bill Gates can collect damages for being forced
to buy yet another copy of IE (right along with everyone else in his
class action law suit against Microsoft Corporation, the monopolist).

You know, despite all of the false conclusions I still see no
illustration supporting the view that bundling is not harmful or unfair
to all consumers.  I see absolutely no illustrations.  All I see are
unsupported conclusions.  Hell.  I have even illustrated how Bill Gates
is harmed financially.  We do not know how much because the price he
paid is not disclosed.  And, by the way, the wholesaler does not decide
how much the retailer charges customers.  So. Microsoft can yell and
scream all they want that IE is free and it does not apply to the cost
to the consumer.  Only the OEM decides that issue.

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