Re: bundling is inherently unfair to consumers

["Ethical at One of One dot Net" <ethical@1of1.net>]

In <3855CD50.85108EC2@lamlaw.com>, on 12/14/99 at 12:21 AM,
   "Lewis A. Mettler" <lmettler@lamlaw.com> said:

|Ethical at One of One dot Net wrote:

|>     In summary, it is simply not possible to say _truthfully_
|>     that bundling is _always_ harmful to consumers.  If Mr. Mettler
|>     persists, in the face of real-world examples, to insist that
|>     bundling _always_ is harmful to consumers, 

    Mr. Mettler has repeatedly used the "always" word.

|See findings of facts related to consumer harm caused by suppression
|of innovative products from the market as a direct result of
|Microsoft Corporation bundling IE.

    Judge Jackson found a specific instance of specific bundling to 
    cause consumer harm.  Judge Jackson was limited to the specific 
    facts before him and most assuredly did _not_ find that, as a 
    matter of general application, all bundling is always harmful 
    to all consumers. 

|In fact, Judge Jackson concluded as fact that bundling was harmful
|to consumers and competitors alike.  His findings made notice of no
|exceptions and neither have I.

    Your logic fails because there is a difference between 
    a universal and a specific.  For one who repeatedly and 
    rudely questions others' intelligence, you are exposing 
    a rather big target. 

    The Warren Commission found that a bullet penetrated John F.
    Kennedy's brain.  The Warren Commission did not find that every 
    bullet fired always penetrates President Kenedy's brain.

|Does this author suggest that Judge Jackson is also lying?

    The question is asinine.  
    The assumption behind the question is puerile.


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Ethical at One of One dot Net" <ethical@1of1.net>   
[T. Guilbert]
sending email to you from lovely Portland, Oregon, USofA
-----------------------------------------------------------