Re: bundling is inherently unfair to consumers

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

Mitch,

Mitch Stone wrote:
> 
> --- From a message sent by Eric M. Hopper on 12/14/99 7:36 AM ---
> 
> >       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.
> 
> All proprietary products are monopoly products "within their market
> space," given that nobody but the owner is able to freely manufacture the
> product. This is very much in the nature of patents and copyrights, and
> why I find this entire debate so absurd -- the definition of "market
> space" apparently depends entirely on who is doing the arguing.

No. That is not true.  There are many markets with readily available
substitutes.

Linux is just one example.

Ford is a substitute for Chevy.  Even Navigator is a substitute for IE
except for those applications directly depending upon IE.  And, even
WordPerfect is a partial substitute for Word. 

Failure to determine when products have and do not have ready
substitutes does not invalidate the market definition process.

Need more examples?  One brand of watch is a substitute for another,
etc.  One brand of radio is a substitute for another.

Many markets, in fact, have readily available substitutes.  TVs, stoves,
refrigerators, cars, beds, houses, rentals just about everything. 
Patents and copyrights do create a form of a monopoly in one sense but
they often do not create monopolies in the sense they have no readily
available substitutes. 

See the findings of facts on this issue.

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