Re: bundling apps with the OS must be harmful afterall

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

Dan,

Dan Strychalski wrote:
> 
> Lewis A. Mettler <lmettler@lamlaw.com> wrote --
> 
> > I submitted the "Bill Gates" article to ZDNet as an op-ed piece.
> >
> > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2410424,00.html
> 
> Congrats.
> 
> > Most interesting is that they changed the title.  My title was as it was
> > submitted on this list.  It does not mean they agree.  But, it does mean
> > they understand the issue.
> 
> Nah. Most interesting is the way they slipped the word _choice_ into the
> blurb they added:
> 
>    *** ZDNN reader Lewis Mettler offers an opinion on Microsoft's
>    choice to bundle its OS with its Internet Explorer brower. ***
> 
> As for the title, yours simply wasn't very good. On the other hand, I
> suspect that you object to their removal of the name Bill Gates, and I
> agree that it would have been better if the name had been kept in.

Actually, their choice of titles was better.  They correctly concluded
that the article was about harm to consumers and not harm only to Bill
Gates.  Actually, Bill Gates may not have been harmed unless he bought a
PC recently.  Then the article is dead on.

But, the real importance is the showing of harm to all those ardent
die-hard Microsoft promoters who swear no one is harmed by what
Microsoft does.  Some of those people are even lawyers and economists.

But, you must keep in mind that "harm to consumers" does not need to be
shown in the antitrust case.  Harm to competitors is required.  And,
despite this fact (which every economist and lawyer should know)
Microsoft pushes the idea in articles that lack of harm to consumers is
supposed to be relevant in some way.  Not only is consumer harm not the
issue any claim that it does not exist is clearly false.

If anyone can demonstrate how Bill Gates himself is harmed, just about
everyone is.  The only question is how much.

In this case it is the competitive market value of the forced product. 
IE is not free.  That would require proof that Microsoft and all its
economists are completely brain dead.

Monopolist simply do not have to give anything away.  They can and do
just force the sale.  Even a truly free product will not have a 100%
distribution record.  Communicator might be free.  No one must part with
their money to get it.  But, IE is not.  Credit cards come out just like
they did for Bill Gates.  He had no choice.  And, of course, wanting the
product did not reduce the harm.

So even those who opening promote the forced sale of IE (such as Bill
Gates) are in fact harmed by that very process.

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