Re: bundling is inherently unfair to consumers

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

Mitch,

Mitch Stone wrote:
> 
> --- From a message sent by Wandered Inn on 12/14/99 5:03 AM ---
> 
> >>      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?
> 
> Because the ability to keep a story straight varies inversely with the
> tallness of the tale.

As I explained in another post I distinguish between illegality,
fairness and harm.

Illegality is primarily limited to acts by monopolists.  Although this
may not be true for violations of State law in the Microsoft case.

Fairness is in the perception of the consumer (not the vendor).

Harm is also from the perception of the consumer.

Antitrust illegality is in the harm to competitors.

I have consistently used terms in this way.

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