Re: bundling is inherently unfair to consumers

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

Eric,

"Eric M. Hopper" wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 08:46:41PM -0500, 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.
> 
>         *nod*  I can see that point, but...
> 
>         Suppose Sun did start selling Solaris with a half-ton of raw
> sewage?  Basically everybody would start a long and painful trek off of
> Solaris and the Sparc platform.  I bet a few places would even buy the
> sewage because they were desperate for an upgrade.
> 
>         It wouldn't happen with the Mac simply because people who own
> Macs have a much lower cost to switch.
> 
>         This is one of the reasons I find patent and copyright law to be
> somewhat disturbing, and in need of some rethinking.  What would've
> happened if Einstein had tried to patent General Relativity, or had
> copyrighted the formula 'E = mc^2'?
> 
> Hmmmm...  needs thinking,

No.  Neither qualify for a patent.

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