Re: Bundling and operating systems

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

Eric,

Eric Lee Green wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 19 Dec 1999, Mitch Stone wrote:
> > Eric, the reason you're not hearing much support for your viewpoints is
> > not because we don't agree. Speaking for myself, at least, I believe you
> > are 100% correct, and I believe others feel likewise. And you have
> > articulated the points succinctly and lucidly, which is entirely to your
> > credit. No, the reason we stay clear of the fray is because we are simply
> > bone-weary of Lewis Mettler's broken record approach to this question.
> 
> Oh, I was already aware of that. I started this thread primarily to allow Lewis
> Mettler to make a fool out of himself, which he has proceeded to do by saying
> that a prominent Linux activist is a Microsoft plant and that if one single
> person is harmed by a bundling action then it's illegal.

Please find my post where I said if a single person is harmed it it then
illegal.

I have always distinguished between 1) unfair to consumers 2) harmful to
consumers and 3) illegal antitrust activity.

One does not prove the other.

Many harmful acts are not illegal.

Many unfair acts are not illegal.

In fact, antitrust law is primary about harm to competitors and harm to
consumers is not even an element of the charge.

I have suggested some support Microsoft simply because their argument
supports Microsoft and not Linux or any other competing OS.

Read the little story about how Bill Gates is harmed when he tries to
buy a PC for Linux.

> 
> > You will soon learn (I sincerely hope) that his position is inflexible
> > and absolutist in the extreme, and that he will reject out of hand all
> > data which does not conform to his rather bizarre theories.
> 
> I suspect that I will be going away soon, simply because the entertainment
> value of watching L.A.M.E. humiliate himself will soon wear thin. 

Or, your assignment will change?

Your arguments parallel those of Microsoft precisely.

> I do think
> that his focus upon one particular action, bundling IE as part of Windows 98, is
> short-sighted and ignores the realities of the modern operating systems
> market..  

Please read the findings of facts.  The judge found that forcing the
sale of IE via bundling deprives consumers of their choice of products
and suppresses superior technology that might otherwise find success in
the marketplace.

My views are supported by the findings of facts.

<snip>

I think Judge Jackson has demonstrated a superior understanding of these
issues than just about anyone on this list.  Clearly Judge Jackson has
not been fooled by the bundling issue.

He understands it.

He also understands the impact upon the consumer and competitors when
bundling is used.

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