Re: just who are these people?

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

Eric,

"Eric M. Hopper" wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 10:56:42AM -0500, Lewis A. Mettler wrote:
> >
> > Bundling with a monopoly product is illegal.  That is a separate
> > determination than fairness and harm.
> >
> > Bundling is in fact inherently unfair to consumers and harmful.
>     .
>     .
>     .
> > That power can be supported if all tire dealers in town likewise bundle
> > burger meat with their tires.  In that case, you will be buying the meat
> > regardless of your taste, religion or eating habits, right?  Either that
> > or do without tires.  So if all tires are bundled with meat (operating
> > systems with networking technology) then you are still forced to buy
> > both regardless of your needs and harmed because of it.  In this case,
> > no one tire company has a monopoly but together they can either fix
> > price or fix products by bundling.  Oligopolies and cartels do this as a
> > matter of course.
> >
> > Again, bundling harms consumers.  And, it harms them all.
> 
>         I disagree.  Bundling when people have no choice is harmful, but
> otherwise its harmless, and can often benfit the consumer.  No consumers
> I know of would choose to buy each individual instruction of a program
> and assemble it themselves.  A very, very tiny minority of consumers
> might choose to buy a program an individual object module at a time and
> link it themselves.

I have always distinguished between "bundles" and "suites".

And, I do not use the benefits that might be provided to consumers in
suites to argue that bundles are not harmful.

Please distinguish between the two.

The suggestion that individual instructions are separate programs is
also a false suggestion. They are not.

Has anyone ever evaluated or considered the office suite products?  You
would think not from the silly arguments offered in support of
"bundles".

The office pro suite often includes a word processor, a spreadsheet and
a data base system.  However, even Microsoft (in its wisdom) only
includes the DBMS with the "Pro" Suite.  Wordperfect does likewise. 
And, Microsoft does sell Word, Excell and Access separately as well.

The suggestion that unbundling requires the separate sale of individual
instructions is bogus.

All that unbundling requires is that separate programs be sold
separately as Microsoft Corporation does with their office products.

Has no one read the testimony in the antitrust trial?  Mr. Boies made a
point of getting that fact on the record just in case someone was not
aware of it.

> 
>         I'm going to pick Linux here because it's what I'm the most
> familiar with...
> 
>         I would put forth that, because of the nature of Open Source,
> Linux is the product that is most likely to be distributed in a fashion
> that is consistent with the needs of its consumers.  If a bundle
> includes too much, someone will make a bundle that includes a smaller
> amount of stuff because they either won't want to deal with the hassle
> of having all that stuff, or because they want to run it in an
> environment in which excess baggage is unacceptable.  The Linux Router
> Project is a good example of this.  So are various embedded system
> distributions of Linux.

Great.  No problem.

> 
>         There are hardly ANY Linux distributions that do not include
> bundled networking technology.  The one that I think may not is designed
> for embedded systems in an embedded controller environment, and it evens
> comes 'bundled' with the device drivers for the serial port.

Big mistake.  Linux can not easily network with OS/2, BeOS or Windows
because of the bundling.

Is Lantastic offered as a choice of networking in the Linux bundle? 
No?  Why not?  Please do not suggest that no one in their right mind
might want to network a Linux box with an OS/2 box.  I have that need. 
And, I want to satisfy that need with one and only one networking
technology.  Remember the trivia question that no one could answer?  The
question does not come up when consumers can buy Lantastic or some other
technology for all their boxes.

> 
>         People WANT networking technology bundled with their OS.  

Not if that technology is not available on all their systems.

Consumers no more want networking technology limited to a single
platform than they want their word processor limited to a single
platform.

Consumers no more want networking technology limited to a single
platform than they want their browser technology limited to a single
platform.

Why do you think Microsoft put IE on Unix and the Mac?

It is pure stupidity to suggest that a cross-platform technology should
be limited to a single OS.

Networking is bundled with the OS but not because consumers want to be
limited to a single platform.  Dominating vendors force that issue.

> If
> they didn't, Linux wouldn't largely come with bundled networking
> technology.  

Wrong conclusion.  Linux may bundled it simply because no other network
is available.

Remember the multibillion dollar networking market ruined by Microsoft
(and others).

This case is NOT because consumers want to be limited to single
platforms.  Java would never have gotten off the ground if that were the
case.

All consumers want cross-platform capabilities simply because they do
not want to be limited to a single system.

> Someone would make a bundle that didn't have it, and it
> would be distributed with that.  But, since people largely don't WANT an
> OS without embedded networking technology, it isn't going to happen.

Please find a single consumer that wants their technology limited to a
single platform.

You claim that is what they want.  No body wants that.  Samba would not
exist if that were true.  Java would not exist if that were true.  IE
would not exist on Unix and the Mac if that idea were valid.

> 
>         If there's all this harm from bundling, why are people so happy
> that Linux distributors like RedHat exist?  After all, their _MAIN_
> function is bundling.

They are happy about Linux because they have a choice of platforms not
because they only want to benefit from a single one.

Can you understand the difference?  I personally want to benefit from
the technologies offered by OS/2, Linux, NT, BeOS, Unix and the Mac if I
can possibly do that.  Who in their right mind wants to be limited? 
Bundling applications and subsystems with the OS only harms consumers.

Please see the "examination question".  Better yet, answer it.

Simply concluding that consumers want this or that without explanation
is of no value at all.  I have explained in detail why consumers do not
want to be limited to a specific platform simply because networking is
not available cross-platform.

> 
> > Read the findings of facts. Or, use your intelligence.
> 
>         The findings of fact are about Microsoft's behavior.  They're
> about the behavior of a monopolist.  The whole bundling argument changes
> drastically when the bundler holds a monopoly on one of the products in
> the bundle.

Yes.  And Microsoft Networking is in fact a part of that bundle.  Please
see the 'examination question'.

And, when Linux likewise bundles networking, the harm is increased for
all consumers.  It is not decreased.  Harm is increased.  When Linux
bundles its technology, it helps prevent the multibillion dollar
networking market from providing consumers when the choices they want
AND need.  Consumers do not NEED platform specific networking.  That
idea is pure stupidity. They want technology available across all likely
platforms.

Microsoft Corporation is an example. They bought Hotmail running on
Unix.  Many companies who merge find they have multiple platforms. The
last thing they want is any technology limiting their choice of
platforms.

Microsoft Corporation itself is harmed by the bundling of their own
technology with Windows.

Facts are easy to prove when you provide the details.  I see no details
suggesting that anyone wants networking technology to limit their choice
of platforms put to use in their company.  None.  I see no facts.

All I read are conclusions.  But, no facts and no illustrations are
provided.

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