From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Sun Dec 19 18:44:10 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF2B421DAA for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 18:42:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from denali (denali.atlnet.com [208.148.155.187]) by milan.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA11170 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 18:42:40 -0500 Received: from denali.atlnet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by denali (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA32002 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 18:35:39 -0500 Sender: esoteric@denali.essential.org Message-ID: <385D6BCB.D197C25C@denali.atlnet.com> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 18:35:39 -0500 From: Wandered Inn Organization: Nocturnal Aviation Software Design X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.10 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Multiple recipients of list AM-INFO References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems Doug Masson wrote: > Out of curiosity, what is the current retail-store cost of Windows 3.1? This amazed me recently, and reinforced my belief that Microsoft controls this market completely. Priced win 3.11, windows 95 and windows 98 sitting on the shelf together at MicroCenter. All priced within $10 of each other. -- Until later: Geoffrey esoteric@denali.atlnet.com It should be illegal to yell "Y2K" in a crowded economy. -- Larry Wall, creator of the programming language Perl From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Sun Dec 19 20:12:55 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4142621B32 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 20:12:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.rdc1.az.home.com (ha1.rdc1.az.home.com [24.1.240.66]) by milan.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA14422 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 20:13:00 -0500 Received: from ehome.inhouse ([24.9.114.169]) by mail.rdc1.az.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <19991220011254.GHDV2534.mail.rdc1.az.home.com@ehome.inhouse>; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 17:12:54 -0800 From: Eric Lee Green Organization: Myself @ Home To: mstone@vc.net, Mitch Stone , Multiple recipients of list AM-INFO Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 17:48:44 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <199912192307.SAA09924@milan.essential.org> In-Reply-To: <199912192307.SAA09924@milan.essential.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <99121918154103.07284@ehome.inhouse> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems On Sun, 19 Dec 1999, Mitch Stone wrote: > Don't go away -- change the subject. > > The bundling of MSIE with Win 95 should be seen as round one in a two > round fight. The knockout punch was to be delivered with integration. > >From the start, Microsoft was determined to "cut off Netscape's air > supply," and the free distribution of MSIE (plus free access to pay > services) was part of that effort. I think that the internal EMAILs revealed at the trial show what Microsoft's motivations were regarding the integration of MISE with Windows -- i.e., that anti-competitive motivations were one (1) of the reasons they liked the idea so much. On the other hand, I think I demonstrated with the BRU vs. "tar" comparison that a superior non-bundled product will always find a market despite an inferior bundled product -- assuming that there are no other anti-competitive acts going on (such as bribing AOL to use IE as the browser for AOL, and prohibiting OEM's from including Netscape as the default browser in place of IE). And if the non-bundled product is NOT superior, then who has been harmed by the bundled product? Deciding whether a particular bundling incident causes consumer harm or not is not a matter of the perpetrator's motivations. Bill Gates gives millions of dollars to charity for cheap PR purposes, but does this mean that charities should turn down his money because his motives are not pure? No, the action has to be judged upon its results, not upon its motivations. Whatever the motivations behind integrating IE into Windows 98, it still does provide a better user interface and easier access to the Internet, and thus better value to the average consumer. As long as superior products are also allowed to be included by OEMs on an equal basis, this is not a problem (and as mentioned, MS's OEM contracts currently prohibit this). Frankly, I think that Microsoft's business tactics must have been learned from old Mafia movies. "Yousa gonsa put IE onsa yours systems, or weesas gonna handa yousa child yousa head with yousa balls insa the mouth, kapiche?". But that in itself is not what detirmines whether a particular act of bundling causes consumer harm -- rather, the benefits to the average consumer of the bundling, as vs. the costs, is what should detirmine that. One final thing: the market has spoken, with a clear voice: all modern operating systems must be bundled with a browser in order to be competitive. I'm sure that L.A.M.E. will insist that SCO bundling Netscape with their OS and KDE bundling the "Kommander" browser with their desktop environment is anti-competitive in some way, but the simple fact of the matter is that SCO and KDE had no choice -- this is what their customers demanded. As a user of KDE I certainly appreciate having an Internet-integrated filesystem/HTML browser (actually, the file listings are being converted to HTML to be displayed by the browser, there are no real "icons" in KDE, there are only web pages with graphical links). It makes my life more conveient in many ways. On the other hand, Red Hat Software is also allowed to bundle Netscape as the default browser for the KDE in their Linux OS, despite the fact that the "Kommander" is the standard bundled browser for KDE... this is a choice that the "K" license allows, and that Microsoft's OEM license does not. -- Eric Lee Green e_l_green@hotmail.com http://members.tripod.com/e_l_green/ From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Sun Dec 19 20:35:19 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5AFF21B16 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 20:35:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-2.tricreations.com [216.205.16.111]) by milan.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA14670 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 20:35:25 -0500 Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.172.79]) by lamlaw.com ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 20:34:57 -0500 Message-ID: <385D8936.F0F8E09@lamlaw.com> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 17:41:10 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: multiple recipients of list AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems References: <199912192307.SAA09924@milan.essential.org> <99121918154103.07284@ehome.inhouse> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Eric, Eric Lee Green wrote: > > On Sun, 19 Dec 1999, Mitch Stone wrote: > > Don't go away -- change the subject. > > > > The bundling of MSIE with Win 95 should be seen as round one in a two > > round fight. The knockout punch was to be delivered with integration. > > >From the start, Microsoft was determined to "cut off Netscape's air > > supply," and the free distribution of MSIE (plus free access to pay > > services) was part of that effort. > > I think that the internal EMAILs revealed at the trial show what Microsoft's > motivations were regarding the integration of MISE with Windows -- i.e., that > anti-competitive motivations were one (1) of the reasons they liked the idea so > much. On the other hand, I think I demonstrated with the BRU vs. "tar" > comparison that a superior non-bundled product will always find a market > despite an inferior bundled product -- assuming that there are no other > anti-competitive acts going on (such as bribing AOL to use IE as the browser for > AOL, and prohibiting OEM's from including Netscape as the default browser in > place of IE). > > And if the non-bundled product is NOT superior, then who has been harmed by the > bundled product? All consumers who would choose not to buy it such as Bill Gates for one. All consumers who already have that application (i.e. millions). In other words, just about everyone unless you can somehow describe a class of consumers not harmed by being forced to buy the product. So far, that clearly has not been done. See findings of facts for assistance if you run into a mental block on this. > > Deciding whether a particular bundling incident causes consumer harm or not is > not a matter of the perpetrator's motivations. Bill Gates gives millions > of dollars to charity for cheap PR purposes, but does this mean that charities > should turn down his money because his motives are not pure? No, the action has > to be judged upon its results, not upon its motivations. Whatever the > motivations behind integrating IE into Windows 98, it still does provide a > better user interface and easier access to the Internet, and thus better value > to the average consumer. As long as superior products are also allowed to be > included by OEMs on an equal basis, this is not a problem (and as mentioned, > MS's OEM contracts currently prohibit this). > > Frankly, I think that Microsoft's business tactics must have been learned from > old Mafia movies. "Yousa gonsa put IE onsa yours systems, or weesas gonna handa > yousa child yousa head with yousa balls insa the mouth, kapiche?". But that in > itself is not what detirmines whether a particular act of bundling causes > consumer harm -- rather, the benefits to the average consumer of the bundling, > as vs. the costs, is what should detirmine that. > > One final thing: the market has spoken, with a clear voice: all modern > operating systems must be bundled with a browser in order to be competitive. Sorry. But, millions of computers have not need for that application. Any consumers that might want it want their choice not your choice forced upon them. A browser no more belongs in the OS than any other application. So far, not one consumer profile has been presented under which they should be forced to buy any application. Period. Subsystems included. Hint: Any consultant that gives that silly advice should be sued for fraud. -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Sun Dec 19 20:49:34 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F41621B32 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 20:49:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.rdc1.az.home.com (ha1.rdc1.az.home.com [24.1.240.66]) by milan.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA14845 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 20:49:39 -0500 Received: from ehome.inhouse ([24.9.114.169]) by mail.rdc1.az.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <19991220014933.GMWN2534.mail.rdc1.az.home.com@ehome.inhouse>; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 17:49:33 -0800 From: Eric Lee Green Organization: Myself @ Home To: lmettler@lamlaw.com, "Lewis A. Mettler" , Multiple recipients of list AM-INFO Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 18:32:43 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <385D5B5C.F8C3AE78@lamlaw.com> In-Reply-To: <385D5B5C.F8C3AE78@lamlaw.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <99121918521904.07284@ehome.inhouse> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [Am-info] Re: bundling favors monopoly and dominant vendors On Sun, 19 Dec 1999, Lewis A. Mettler wrote: > Bundling applications and subsystems always favors a monopolist or ^^^^^^ > dominant product not those who wish to provide alternatives or > competition. You're not Perry Mason, Lewis. You're not grandstanding in front of a jury, and making blanket statements with the word "always" in them is just begging to be shot down in flames. I think the main question is whether value is being provided to consumers in excess of the costs of the bundling. I think it is undeniable that bundling in defiance of consumer demand causes consumer harm, but when the bundling provides value in excess of the additional costs (such as integrating the browser into the user interface, plus the reduction in hassles needed to connect to the Internet for the additional consumer), the issue becomes more complex. I have already noted elsewhere that customer demand (NOT anti-competitive wishes) has led all (ALL) consumer operating systems to bundle an Internet browser. Why is it that if Red Hat bundles Netscape in response to thousands of customer requests it's okay, but if Microsoft bundles IE it's not? Microsoft's motivations are not the issue here, I think we can all agree that Microsoft's motivations bear much resemblance to the motivations of a Mafia capo. The issue is whether the act provides value to the consumer. > Bundling networking technology with the OS makes it very difficult for > an alternative operating system to gain entry in the dominant or > monopoly controlled marketplace. For many years Apple thrived in the school business because of their bundled networking technology -- Appletalk -- which was much easier to install and configure than PC-based technologies. Appletalk clearly provided value to the consumer that providing it as a separate product would not have -- ignorant teachers would not have been able to configure it if they'd had to download something, add additional products, etc. (I'm not denigrating teachers -- I was one for three years, after all -- just stating fact, which is that most teachers know little about computers and have little time to learn about computers if they're going to keep up with their subject-area studies). This is a clear case where bundling provided additional value to the consumer. You should not use the word "always" in vain so often, Lewis. > When anyone suggests they promote bundling, they are only supporting > Microsoft and the key mechanism used by Microsoft to maintain its power. I would submit that the key mechanism used by Microsoft to maintain its power is its business practices, both its OEM and end-user licenses and its unethical conduct when a potential competitor is spotted (which includes "dumping" product in that market until that competitor goes belly-up -- bundling or no). Read the license on Microsoft Office 97 some day. If I am reading that license correctly, it prohibits running the program under the WINE Windows Emulation Environment under Linux, i.e., according to the license, it must be run on a Microsoft OS and may not be run on a competitor's OS. This is clear anti-competitive conduct that has nothing to do with bundling. -- Eric Lee Green e_l_green@hotmail.com http://members.tripod.com/e_l_green/ From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Sun Dec 19 20:55:42 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02CC121B32 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 20:55:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.rdc1.az.home.com (ha1.rdc1.az.home.com [24.1.240.66]) by milan.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA14907 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 20:55:48 -0500 Received: from ehome.inhouse ([24.9.114.169]) by mail.rdc1.az.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <19991220015541.GNVU2534.mail.rdc1.az.home.com@ehome.inhouse>; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 17:55:41 -0800 From: Eric Lee Green Organization: Myself @ Home To: "Lewis A. Mettler" Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 18:53:08 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain Cc: multiple recipients of list AM-INFO References: <199912192307.SAA09924@milan.essential.org> <99121918154103.07284@ehome.inhouse> <385D8936.F0F8E09@lamlaw.com> In-Reply-To: <385D8936.F0F8E09@lamlaw.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <99121918582805.07284@ehome.inhouse> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Sun, 19 Dec 1999, Lewis A. Mettler wrote: > > One final thing: the market has spoken, with a clear voice: all modern > > operating systems must be bundled with a browser in order to be competitive. > > Sorry. But, millions of computers have not need for that application. And as a Wisconsonite I might want a VW New Beetle without air conditioning, like many other Wisconsonites. The question is this: As a Wisconsonite, am I being harmed by VW's action in bundling something I neither want nor need with their car? Should residents of Wisconson have grounds for a class-action anti-trust lawsuit because of the bundling? It is consumer harm, not bundling, that is the issue, Lewis. And consumer harm can mostly be measured in terms of whether the bundling provides better value for consumers. I think it is clear that, for most consumers, having Internet access bundled with the OS provides better value. Otherwise we would not have the current situation, where each and every major OS includes a browser as part of the operating system. Apple, BeOS, Linux, SCO Unix, Sun Solaris, you name it, it comes with a browser now. The consumer has spoken, Lewis. Why are you afraid to listen? -- Eric Lee Green e_l_green@hotmail.com http://members.tripod.com/e_l_green/ From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Sun Dec 19 21:00:04 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDD3621B56 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 21:00:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from X3066.RESNET.CORNELL.EDU (X3066.RESNET.CORNELL.EDU [128.253.200.125]) by milan.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA14972 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 21:00:09 -0500 Received: from [128.253.200.125] by X3066.RESNET.CORNELL.EDU with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 1.3.1); Sun, 19 Dec 1999 20:59:52 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: ericb@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <99121918154103.07284@ehome.inhouse> References: <199912192307.SAA09924@milan.essential.org> <99121918154103.07284@ehome.inhouse> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 20:59:44 -0500 To: am-info@essential.org From: "Eric M. Bennett" Subject: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Eric Green wrote: >And if the non-bundled product is NOT superior, then who has been >harmed by the >bundled product? What if the two products are roughly equivalent? Is it okay for the monopolist to destroy competition? As long as both products are still being innovated, consumers are very likely to lose out in the end if a monopolist destroys competition. Although the products may be roughly equal, with competition they both improve, whereas once competition is removed the one product that remains will probably not advance as quickly. In that case even the people who prefer the monopolist's product can eventually lose out. For this reason, I would argue that force-bundling by a monopolist is often dangerous if there is still significant innovation going on in a given product area, even if the monopolist's product is currently a little better. Whether the possible economic benefits to the consumer that might arise from bundling outweighs this danger is something that would have to be examined case by case. -- Eric Bennett / ericb@pobox.com / emb22@cornell.edu www.pobox.com/~ericb/ Cornell University, Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology I am not a vegetarian because I love animals; I am a vegetarian because I hate plants. -- A. Whitney Brown From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Sun Dec 19 21:09:03 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9435421B56 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 21:09:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.rdc1.az.home.com (ha1.rdc1.az.home.com [24.1.240.66]) by milan.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA15087 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 21:09:09 -0500 Received: from ehome.inhouse ([24.9.114.169]) by mail.rdc1.az.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <19991220020902.GQAX2534.mail.rdc1.az.home.com@ehome.inhouse>; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 18:09:02 -0800 From: Eric Lee Green Organization: Myself @ Home To: "Eric M. Bennett" , am-info@essential.org Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 19:11:04 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <199912192307.SAA09924@milan.essential.org> <99121918154103.07284@ehome.inhouse> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <99121919114906.07284@ehome.inhouse> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Sun, 19 Dec 1999, Eric M. Bennett wrote: > For this reason, I would argue that force-bundling by a monopolist is > often dangerous if there is still significant innovation going on in > a given product area, even if the monopolist's product is currently a > little better. Whether the possible economic benefits to the > consumer that might arise from bundling outweighs this danger is > something that would have to be examined case by case. Thank you. I think this is something that I can agree with. -- Eric Lee Green e_l_green@hotmail.com http://members.tripod.com/e_l_green/ From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Sun Dec 19 20:46:16 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from Kitten.mcs.net (Kitten.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5FA521B16 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 20:46:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from mcs.com (IDENT:root@stevecoh.pr.mcs.net [204.95.62.224]) by Kitten.mcs.net (8.9.3/8.8.2) with ESMTP id TAA85649 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 19:46:14 -0600 (CST) Sender: root@Kitten.mcs.net Message-ID: <385D8A0A.170AC9FB@mcs.com> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 19:44:42 -0600 From: Steve Cohen X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: am-info@venice.essential.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Am-info] Two, two, two tests in one This email gives me a chance to test two things. One, whether the new am-info list will work correctly and two, whether Netscape in my newly installed RedHat 6.1 system is working correctly. Please answer if you get this. If nobody answers I'll know it doesn't work. From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 00:08:07 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from ms17.hinet.net (ms17.hinet.net [168.95.4.17]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CE8221B9A for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 00:08:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from dski@localhost) by ms17.hinet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA23336; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 13:06:57 +0800 (CST) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 13:06:57 +0800 (CST) Message-Id: <199912200506.NAA23336@ms17.hinet.net> To: am-info@venice.essential.org X-URL: http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info X-Mailer: Lynx, Version 2.5 X-Personal_name: Dan Strychalski From: Dan Strychalski Subject: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems Eric Lee Green (, ) wrote -- > I think there is no question that consumer harm has resulted from > Microsoft's actions. However, I suggest that the appropriate focus is upon > Microsoft's business practices, not Microsoft's product line. Microsoft's > business practices constitute anti-competitive abuse of monopoly power. > You're beating a dead horse. . . . > Again: We are beating a dead horse when we talk about bundling. It is > Microsoft's business practices insofar as pricing and OEM relationships, > not their software, that is the real cause of consumer harm. We have discussed Microsoft-style forced bundling without Lewis's help, and many here have expressed the opinion that it has caused considerable harm and must be stopped. Lewis *might* be beating a dead horse in *that* sense, but I think there's more to his current campaign -- which I am of two minds about (nothing unusual, believe it or not ;-) -- than that. In any event, I must object in the strongest terms to any suggestion that we not address product design issues -- or, indeed, any other possibly relevant issues -- on the Appraising Microsoft mailing list. Given Microsoft's awesome power, if the company can be shown to have intentionally harmed either competitors or consumers in any given area -- and I think it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Microsoft has intentionally harmed both competitors and consumers, not just that "consumer harm has resulted from Microsoft's actions" -- we are duty-bound to look at everything the company does. The company is run in an autocratic fashion by an individual who has a history of lawbreaking and who reached his position unhampered by the checks and balances normally at work in a rise through the ranks of an established corporation. We will look at this company and this individual, and we will look HARD, or we cannot be said to have fulfilled our responsibility to society and ourselves. Intent to rob consumers of the benefits of non-proprietary standards *screamed* at me from the user interface of Windows one-or-two-point- something when I first inspected it in 1986 or 1987. Evidence that Microsoft manipulated major players in the x86 software industry to the detriment of consumers from the early eighties on *screams* at me from the user interfaces of all the big-name eighties-era products I know of. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"? Fat chance. Dan Strychalski Technical Writer and Translator dski@ms17.hinet.net Hsinchu, Taiwan, R.O.C. (That's _mail server_ #17, running SunOS and tcsh -- make no mistake!) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 01:27:18 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-2.tricreations.com [216.205.16.111]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A57A121B45 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 01:27:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.172.43]) by lamlaw.com ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 01:26:48 -0500 Message-ID: <385DCDA1.D9124B96@lamlaw.com> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 22:33:05 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems References: <199912192307.SAA09924@milan.essential.org> <99121918154103.07284@ehome.inhouse> <385D8936.F0F8E09@lamlaw.com> <99121918582805.07284@ehome.inhouse> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Eric Lee Green wrote: > > On Sun, 19 Dec 1999, Lewis A. Mettler wrote: > > > One final thing: the market has spoken, with a clear voice: all modern > > > operating systems must be bundled with a browser in order to be competitive. > > > > Sorry. But, millions of computers have not need for that application. > > And as a Wisconsonite I might want a VW New Beetle without air conditioning, > like many other Wisconsonites. > > The question is this: As a Wisconsonite, am I being harmed by VW's action in > bundling something I neither want nor need with their car? Should residents of > Wisconson have grounds for a class-action anti-trust lawsuit because of the > bundling? Are they harmed? Yes. Is it unfair? Yes. Can they avoid the harm? Yes, they can buy another model car without the A/C. The latter fact prevents it from being illegal. > > It is consumer harm, not bundling, that is the issue, Lewis. And consumer harm > can mostly be measured in terms of whether the bundling provides better value > for consumers. Dead wrong. The quality of the product is not relevant. The value of the product is not relevant. Read the findings of facts. There is no findings related to the quality of IE other than that was not the reason why everyone is buying. You are dead wrong when you suggest the quality of the product matters. It matters not one single bit. The financial harm is caused by the forced sale. > I think it is clear that, for most consumers, having Internet > access bundled with the OS provides better value. Dead wrong. Read the findings of facts. The judge found to the contrary. > Otherwise we would not have > the current situation, where each and every major OS includes a browser as part > of the operating system. Apple, BeOS, Linux, SCO Unix, Sun Solaris, you name > it, it comes with a browser now. The consumer has spoken, Lewis. Why are you > afraid to listen? Can you read English? Read the findings of facts. There is no finding at all that consumers must buy browsers. That is one of the silliest argument I have ever heard. Even if I might want one, I only need one copy not four. You are only arguing for the forced sale of products upon consumers at their expense. -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 01:29:05 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-2.tricreations.com [216.205.16.111]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4969421B63 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 01:29:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.172.43]) by lamlaw.com ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 01:28:43 -0500 Message-ID: <385DCE14.3ECA04FB@lamlaw.com> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 22:35:00 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems References: <199912192307.SAA09924@milan.essential.org> <99121918154103.07284@ehome.inhouse> <99121919114906.07284@ehome.inhouse> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Eric, The harm is caused by the forced sale of the product. The quality of the product is not relevant in any way. If the consumer must buy it, they are harmed financially. Period. You are sick if you can not understand that concept. Eric Lee Green wrote: > > On Sun, 19 Dec 1999, Eric M. Bennett wrote: > > For this reason, I would argue that force-bundling by a monopolist is > > often dangerous if there is still significant innovation going on in > > a given product area, even if the monopolist's product is currently a > > little better. Whether the possible economic benefits to the > > consumer that might arise from bundling outweighs this danger is > > something that would have to be examined case by case. > > Thank you. I think this is something that I can agree with. > > -- > Eric Lee Green e_l_green@hotmail.com > http://members.tripod.com/e_l_green/ > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 01:33:44 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-2.tricreations.com [216.205.16.111]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D383721B5C for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 01:33:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.172.43]) by lamlaw.com ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 01:33:01 -0500 Message-ID: <385DCF12.3FA80279@lamlaw.com> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 22:39:14 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: AM-INFO References: <005101bf490c$ad6250c0$0c01a8c0@baron> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems Pap, pap wrote: > > >Clearly Judge Jackson has not been fooled by the bundling issue. > > >He understands it. > > This is true. More to the point, he understood it. He did try to restrain > cementing the browser with the soon to be released OS. He knew that he had > to break the chain if he could. He knew what they were up to, maintaining > momentum. > > It was overturned. Notice of an injunctive relief was not given. He was not overturned on the facts of the case. > > The OS came out with IE4, just a barely warmed over IE3. > > In very short order IE5 appeared and it was orders of magnitude superior to > anything in the market. So what? The quality of the product is completely and totally not relevant. > > It has won widespread support because it is very good. So is the OS. It must > have been a monumental effort to get as much right as there is. It has even > been enhanced since. Millions of consumers are being forced to buy IE. The quality of the product is completely non relevant. IE could cure AIDS and its sale would be harmful. -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 01:41:48 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-2.tricreations.com [216.205.16.111]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6794021B63 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 01:41:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.172.43]) by lamlaw.com ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 01:41:26 -0500 Message-ID: <385DD110.C80CBE02@lamlaw.com> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 22:47:44 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: AM-INFO Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Am-info] consumers harmed financially even if the product is perfect Consumers are harmed financially because they are forced to buy the product when bundled not because the product itself might be harmful. Read the Bill Gates story again. Bill wanted IE. But, he was harmed anyway simply because he had to buy it. If you want Word, you are harmed if you are forced to buy a second copy. That is a very simple concept. The quality of the product is not relevant in any way. -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 01:45:20 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from mail.rdc1.az.home.com (ha1.rdc1.az.home.com [24.1.240.66]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8363821B63 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 01:45:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ehome.inhouse ([24.9.114.169]) by mail.rdc1.az.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <19991220064519.IKBZ2534.mail.rdc1.az.home.com@ehome.inhouse>; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 22:45:19 -0800 From: Eric Lee Green Organization: Myself @ Home To: Dan Strychalski , am-info@venice.essential.org Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 23:08:11 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <199912200506.NAA23336@ms17.hinet.net> In-Reply-To: <199912200506.NAA23336@ms17.hinet.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <99121923480307.07284@ehome.inhouse> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Sun, 19 Dec 1999, Dan Strychalski wrote: > Intent to rob consumers of the benefits of non-proprietary standards > *screamed* at me from the user interface of Windows one-or-two-point- > something when I first inspected it in 1986 or 1987. Evidence that > Microsoft manipulated major players in the x86 software industry to the > detriment of consumers from the early eighties on *screams* at me from > the user interfaces of all the big-name eighties-era products I know of. I agree that Microsoft deliberately has made anti-competitive decisions regarding their product design. Microsoft intentionally tries to include proprietary protocols as part of their products in order to remove consumer choice, and attempts to break commodity protocols whenever possible in order to remove consumer choice. I have never stated that ALL bundling is helpful to consumers. On the other hand, I suggest that the Microsoft Network fiasco should be instructive here. Microsoft intended to not have a standard Internet protocol as part of their operating system. Instead, they intended for everybody who wished to surf the 'Net to have to use their proprietary protocol, talking to their private modem pool, for a per-hour surcharge. Think classic Prodigy or early AOL. Consumers, however, rejected that choice in droves, and instead installed Trumpet Winsock and Netscape on their Windows 3.1 systems by the millions. Microsoft had every reason to believe that the same would happen under Windows 95. Even a monopoly cannot forever maintain control over what software and protocols are installed on its platform without crippling their platform, and Microsoft lives by the slogan of the paranoid, "they're out to get me" (competitors, government regulators, Jar Jar Binks, you name the bogeyman, Microsoft's paranoid staff believes they're out to torpedo Microsoft). Why do you think their Outlook Express can read mail from POP3 and IMAP servers, when Microsoft would very much prefer that it be reading mail only from their proprietary Exchange server? In large part, it's because Netscape and other potential competitors that exist only in their paranoid little heads can already read POP3 and IMAP, and they fear losing market share if they can't. In short -- Microsoft definitely makes plenty of product decisions that hurt consumers. But I believe that a free market can correct most of those decisions as far as the product line is concerned -- much as the advent of Trumpet Winsock and Netscape Navigator torpedoed Microsoft's anti-competitive plans for The Microsoft Network. But the free market can only do so if Microsoft is not allowed to abuse their monopoly position via unethical business practices and monopolistic actions such as tying and using contracts to punish or reward OEMs and corporations that toe the Microsoft line. The free market can only do so if anti-competitive licensing agreements that prohibit reverse engineering, that prohibit installing third-party software in as prominent as place as Microsoft software, and that prohibit running Microsoft products on non-Microsoft operating systems are squashed like bugs. That is why I'm not particularly concerned about anti-competitive decisions that Microsoft makes insofar as its product line goes -- if they make an anti-consumer decision insofar as product design is concerned, some third party will hasten to fill the gap. *IF* said third party is allowed to do so. Right now, with Microsoft's current licensing policies and business practices, that's a big "if". Thus the reason that my primary concern is about their licensing policies and business practices, rather than about their product. -- Eric Lee Green e_l_green@hotmail.com http://members.tripod.com/e_l_green/ From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 02:57:41 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-2.tricreations.com [216.205.16.111]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 255B121B31 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 02:57:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.217]) by lamlaw.com ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 02:57:16 -0500 Message-ID: <385DE2D5.A14D30E5@lamlaw.com> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 00:03:33 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems References: <199912192307.SAA09924@milan.essential.org> <99121918154103.07284@ehome.inhouse> <385D8936.F0F8E09@lamlaw.com> <19991220014925.I11150@omnifarious.mn.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Eric, All you have to do is sell separate applications separately. "Eric M. Hopper" wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 19, 1999 at 05:41:10PM -0800, Lewis A. Mettler wrote: > > Eric, > > > > Sorry. But, millions of computers have not need for that application. > > > > Any consumers that might want it want their choice not your choice > > forced upon them. > > > > A browser no more belongs in the OS than any other application. > > > > So far, not one consumer profile has been presented under which they > > should be forced to buy any application. Period. Subsystems included. > > > > Hint: Any consultant that gives that silly advice should be sued for > > fraud. > > You've convinced me Mr. Mettler. From now on, I'm providing all > of my programs an individual machine instruction at a time. Each one > will have to be individually installed. In fact, the installation > program will be provided this way. You'll have to use 'cat' or the > equivalent... oops, that's bundled software too. *gasp* This is gonna > be tricky. > > Maybe I should just do it a feature at a time. For a particular > menu item, you'll have to grab a box and CD off the shelf. Of course, > that'll cost $2000 for the whole package, but we want to prevent harm to > cosumers, right? > > You know, I think the C programming language should always come > unbundled from its libraries so you're free to pick and choose which > version you want to use. Heck, there are _free_ versions of the C > standard libraries out there, so it's quite likely that someone might > already have an implementation so there's obvious consumer harm going on > here. > > Wait... I think I read somewhere that C owes its success to its > libraries. Ahh, that guy (I think his name is Dennis Ritchie) must be a > Microsoft shill. Heck, it's obvious that there must be some terrible > conspiracy of consumer fraud in the computer industry with all these > computer languages coming out with bundled libraries. Heck, even the > Open Source people are in on it. Look at the massive bundling that > occurs with perl! > > Reductio ad absurdum... isn't it fun? Hint: You can find the > definition in any beginning higher math textbook. > > Sorry folks, he's started getting through my filter again with the list > change, > -- > Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. > Some think it is the voice of God. Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet > broke a chain or freed a human soul. ---Mark Twain > -- Eric Hopper (hopper@omnifarious.mn.org http://omnifarious.mn.org/~hopper) -- -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 03:29:39 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from omnifarious.mn.org (ehopper-host105.dsl.visi.com [209.98.248.105]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 619C721B1A for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 03:29:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 11466 invoked by uid 310); 20 Dec 1999 08:29:39 -0000 Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 02:29:39 -0600 From: "Eric M. Hopper" To: "Lewis A. Mettler" Cc: AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems Message-ID: <19991220022939.L11150@omnifarious.mn.org> References: <199912192307.SAA09924@milan.essential.org> <99121918154103.07284@ehome.inhouse> <385D8936.F0F8E09@lamlaw.com> <19991220014925.I11150@omnifarious.mn.org> <385DE2D5.A14D30E5@lamlaw.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3i In-Reply-To: <385DE2D5.A14D30E5@lamlaw.com> On Mon, Dec 20, 1999 at 12:03:33AM -0800, Lewis A. Mettler wrote: > Eric, > > All you have to do is sell separate applications separately. What's this 'application' thing you keep talking about? From what I've read, it sounds like a pretty indistinct category that's used to label some kind of machine executable data and possibly data the machine exectable data is supposed to understand if it's executed (like default config files, clip-art, document templates, header files, resouce files). I've even seen things that are called 'applications' that don't require another thing from the indistinct category of 'OS' to function. I prefer not to have my definitions of harm revolve around a definition that's that indistinct. You could try solidifying things a bit with the somewhat more concrete definition of 'platform'. But, of course, that makes the C compiler a platform upon which you install the libraries it is to use. And there you go saying that bundling the standard libraries with the C compiler is harmful to consumers. I hope I can get my filter working soon, -- Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God. Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul. ---Mark Twain -- Eric Hopper (hopper@omnifarious.mn.org http://omnifarious.mn.org/~hopper) -- From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 05:40:05 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from prserv.net (out1.prserv.net [165.87.194.252]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C19AE21B1A for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 05:40:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ibm.net ([32.100.254.22]) by prserv.net (out1) with SMTP id <1999122010400225202kig6he>; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 10:40:03 +0000 Message-ID: <385CB6F1.7D17590D@ibm.net> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 05:44:02 -0500 From: "John J. Urbaniak" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (OS/2; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Cohen Cc: am-info@venice.essential.org Subject: Re: [Am-info] Two, two, two tests in one References: <385D8A0A.170AC9FB@mcs.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I answered. John Steve Cohen wrote: > This email gives me a chance to test two things. One, whether the new > am-info list will work correctly and two, whether Netscape in my newly > installed RedHat 6.1 system is working correctly. Please answer if you > get this. If nobody answers I'll know it doesn't work. > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 07:11:37 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from ms17.hinet.net (ms17.hinet.net [168.95.4.17]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CFAB21B1A for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 07:11:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from dski@localhost) by ms17.hinet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA02529 for am-info@lists.essential.org; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:11:34 +0800 (CST) From: dski@ms17.hinet.net Message-Id: <199912201211.UAA02529@ms17.hinet.net> Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems To: am-info@venice.essential.org (AM-INFO List) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:11:33 +0800 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25 ME8b] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=ELM945691893-857-0_ Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit --ELM945691893-857-0_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Eric Lee Green (, ) wrote -- > I agree that Microsoft deliberately has made anti-competitive decisions > regarding their product design. Microsoft intentionally tries to include > proprietary protocols as part of their products in order to remove > consumer choice, and attempts to break commodity protocols whenever > possible in order to remove consumer choice. I have never stated that > ALL bundling is helpful to consumers. I didn't address the bundling issue _per se_. I said we've discussed the practice, and many found harm in it, but I don't think it's a dead horse. The responses to Lewis's posts have been fascinating. Not that I like everything Lewis says, mind you. I like some of it, and I love what his horse is kicking up. Nor did I address what Microsoft includes in their products. I am primarily concerned with something that was missing from their products and those of companies in their sphere of influence for ten years. You avoid this subject quite adroitly. > In short -- Microsoft definitely makes plenty of product decisions that hurt > consumers. But I believe that a free market can correct most of those > decisions as far as the product line is concerned -- much as the advent of > Trumpet Winsock and Netscape Navigator torpedoed Microsoft's anti-competitive > plans for The Microsoft Network. But the free market can only do so if > Microsoft is not allowed to abuse their monopoly position via unethical > business practices and monopolistic actions such as tying and using contracts > to punish or reward OEMs and corporations that toe the Microsoft line. The > free market can only do so if anti-competitive licensing agreements that > prohibit reverse engineering, that prohibit installing third-party software > in as prominent as place as Microsoft software, and that prohibit running > Microsoft products on non-Microsoft operating systems are squashed like bugs. That has to be done, and a great deal more has to be done. Microsoft's depredations go back much further than those agreements. You seem to want us to turn a blind eye to this. It ain't gonna happen. Oh -- where I come from, we call them "consensus-based, non-proprietary formal standards," not "commodity protocols." The latter is a Microsoftism and as inappropriate and ugly a construction as I have ever encountered. It's hard to imagine what you can do to restore your credibility with me, Mr. Green. Dan Strychalski Hsinchu, Taiwan, R.O.C. Happiness is a standards-based keyset. --ELM945691893-857-0_ Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Description: Forwarded message from Eric Lee Green Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received: from mail.rdc1.az.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.az.home.com [24.1.240.66]) by ms17.hinet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA07616 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 14:45:27 +0800 (CST) Received: from ehome.inhouse ([24.9.114.169]) by mail.rdc1.az.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <19991220064519.IKBZ2534.mail.rdc1.az.home.com@ehome.inhouse>; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 22:45:19 -0800 From: Eric Lee Green Organization: Myself @ Home To: Dan Strychalski , am-info@venice.essential.org Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 23:08:11 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <199912200506.NAA23336@ms17.hinet.net> In-Reply-To: <199912200506.NAA23336@ms17.hinet.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <99121923480307.07284@ehome.inhouse> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Status: O On Sun, 19 Dec 1999, Dan Strychalski wrote: > Intent to rob consumers of the benefits of non-proprietary standards > *screamed* at me from the user interface of Windows one-or-two-point- > something when I first inspected it in 1986 or 1987. Evidence that > Microsoft manipulated major players in the x86 software industry to the > detriment of consumers from the early eighties on *screams* at me from > the user interfaces of all the big-name eighties-era products I know of. I agree that Microsoft deliberately has made anti-competitive decisions regarding their product design. Microsoft intentionally tries to include proprietary protocols as part of their products in order to remove consumer choice, and attempts to break commodity protocols whenever possible in order to remove consumer choice. I have never stated that ALL bundling is helpful to consumers. On the other hand, I suggest that the Microsoft Network fiasco should be instructive here. Microsoft intended to not have a standard Internet protocol as part of their operating system. Instead, they intended for everybody who wished to surf the 'Net to have to use their proprietary protocol, talking to their private modem pool, for a per-hour surcharge. Think classic Prodigy or early AOL. Consumers, however, rejected that choice in droves, and instead installed Trumpet Winsock and Netscape on their Windows 3.1 systems by the millions. Microsoft had every reason to believe that the same would happen under Windows 95. Even a monopoly cannot forever maintain control over what software and protocols are installed on its platform without crippling their platform, and Microsoft lives by the slogan of the paranoid, "they're out to get me" (competitors, government regulators, Jar Jar Binks, you name the bogeyman, Microsoft's paranoid staff believes they're out to torpedo Microsoft). Why do you think their Outlook Express can read mail from POP3 and IMAP servers, when Microsoft would very much prefer that it be reading mail only from their proprietary Exchange server? In large part, it's because Netscape and other potential competitors that exist only in their paranoid little heads can already read POP3 and IMAP, and they fear losing market share if they can't. In short -- Microsoft definitely makes plenty of product decisions that hurt consumers. But I believe that a free market can correct most of those decisions as far as the product line is concerned -- much as the advent of Trumpet Winsock and Netscape Navigator torpedoed Microsoft's anti-competitive plans for The Microsoft Network. But the free market can only do so if Microsoft is not allowed to abuse their monopoly position via unethical business practices and monopolistic actions such as tying and using contracts to punish or reward OEMs and corporations that toe the Microsoft line. The free market can only do so if anti-competitive licensing agreements that prohibit reverse engineering, that prohibit installing third-party software in as prominent as place as Microsoft software, and that prohibit running Microsoft products on non-Microsoft operating systems are squashed like bugs. That is why I'm not particularly concerned about anti-competitive decisions that Microsoft makes insofar as its product line goes -- if they make an anti-consumer decision insofar as product design is concerned, some third party will hasten to fill the gap. *IF* said third party is allowed to do so. Right now, with Microsoft's current licensing policies and business practices, that's a big "if". Thus the reason that my primary concern is about their licensing policies and business practices, rather than about their product. -- Eric Lee Green e_l_green@hotmail.com http://members.tripod.com/e_l_green/ --ELM945691893-857-0_-- From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 07:26:54 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from ms17.hinet.net (ms17.hinet.net [168.95.4.17]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B57B21B1A for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 07:26:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from dski@localhost) by ms17.hinet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA11313 for am-info@lists.essential.org; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:26:44 +0800 (CST) From: dski@ms17.hinet.net Message-Id: <199912201226.UAA11313@ms17.hinet.net> Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems To: am-info@venice.essential.org (AM-INFO List) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:26:44 +0800 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25 ME8b] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Wow -- I've never seen a post appear in the Web archive as quickly as the one I just sent out. I've also never seen what Elm does when I use the f(orward) command and say y(es), let me edit what goes out. The entire original message was tacked on at the end without my knowledge. Sorry about that. Dan Strychalski From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 12:00:47 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from vcnet.com (mail.vcnet.com [209.239.239.15]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C71D521B1A for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 12:00:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 22642 invoked from network); 20 Dec 1999 17:00:44 -0000 Received: from port100.dial.vcnet.com (HELO ?209.239.238.100?) (209.239.238.100) by mail.vcnet.com with SMTP; 20 Dec 1999 17:00:44 -0000 Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 09:00:44 -0800 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Mitch Stone To: "am-info" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-Id: <19991220170045.C71D521B1A@venice.essential.org> --- From a message sent by Eric Lee Green on 12/19/99 4:48 PM --- >I think that the internal EMAILs revealed at the trial show what Microsoft's >motivations were regarding the integration of MISE with Windows -- i.e., that >anti-competitive motivations were one (1) of the reasons they liked the >idea so >much. On the other hand, I think I demonstrated with the BRU vs. "tar" >comparison that a superior non-bundled product will always find a market >despite an inferior bundled product -- assuming that there are no other >anti-competitive acts going on (such as bribing AOL to use IE as the >browser for >AOL, and prohibiting OEM's from including Netscape as the default browser in >place of IE). Well since you've just chided Lewis Mettler for using "always" in an argument, I won't hesitate to suggest that it's inappropriate for you to use it as well. Superior products _may_ survive in a market populated by "free" (in fact, dumped) product. Or they may not. It depends largely on economies of scale in the given industry. The examples you've provided are (correct me if I'm wrong), freeware and/or opensource. These exist in a different if not separate ecology from commercial products. >And if the non-bundled product is NOT superior, then who has been harmed >by the >bundled product? This is a bit too abstract a statement for me to accept on its face. Who decides superiority? Why the market does of course, but clearly markets are not monolithic things -- they should allow sufficient variation for preference selection. If they don't, well, perhaps everybody is harmed, if not now, then eventually, when the market becomes a monoculture and not supportive of diversity. >Deciding whether a particular bundling incident causes consumer harm or >not is >not a matter of the perpetrator's motivations. Bill Gates gives millions >of dollars to charity for cheap PR purposes, but does this mean that >charities >should turn down his money because his motives are not pure? No, the >action has >to be judged upon its results, not upon its motivations. Whatever the >motivations behind integrating IE into Windows 98, it still does provide a >better user interface and easier access to the Internet, and thus better >value >to the average consumer. As long as superior products are also allowed to be >included by OEMs on an equal basis, this is not a problem (and as mentioned, >MS's OEM contracts currently prohibit this). Again, this argument relies upon the abstraction of superiority. I believe that diversity can be snuffed out, and superiority along with it. And I think you've created a false dichotomy with this results vs. motivations point. It seemed to be important to the DoJ and Judge Jackson that Microsoft acted with intent to preclude competition in the browser market. And didn't Microsoft make a rather large effort to demonstrate that they acted without undue malice towards their competitors? >Frankly, I think that Microsoft's business tactics must have been learned >from >old Mafia movies. "Yousa gonsa put IE onsa yours systems, or weesas gonna >handa >yousa child yousa head with yousa balls insa the mouth, kapiche?". But >that in >itself is not what detirmines whether a particular act of bundling causes >consumer harm -- rather, the benefits to the average consumer of the >bundling, >as vs. the costs, is what should detirmine that. > >One final thing: the market has spoken, with a clear voice: all modern >operating systems must be bundled with a browser in order to be competitive. [snip] Possibly, but we have to be aware of the impact of monopolies engaging in bundling. Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 12:18:59 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-2.tricreations.com [216.205.16.111]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C191421B1A for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 12:18:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.151]) by lamlaw.com ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 12:18:33 -0500 Message-ID: <385E6666.8011265C@lamlaw.com> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 09:24:54 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems References: <199912192307.SAA09924@milan.essential.org> <99121918154103.07284@ehome.inhouse> <385D8936.F0F8E09@lamlaw.com> <19991220014925.I11150@omnifarious.mn.org> <385DE2D5.A14D30E5@lamlaw.com> <19991220022939.L11150@omnifarious.mn.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Eric, "Eric M. Hopper" wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 20, 1999 at 12:03:33AM -0800, Lewis A. Mettler wrote: > > Eric, > > > > All you have to do is sell separate applications separately. > > What's this 'application' thing you keep talking about? From > what I've read, it sounds like a pretty indistinct category that's used > to label some kind of machine executable data and possibly data the > machine exectable data is supposed to understand if it's executed (like > default config files, clip-art, document templates, header files, > resouce files). I've even seen things that are called 'applications' > that don't require another thing from the indistinct category of 'OS' to > function. > > I prefer not to have my definitions of harm revolve around a > definition that's that indistinct. Ask your computer store clerk to direct you to the applications esle. Acting like you do not know how to define the parameters of an application is fooling no one. If you only are interested in forcing consumers to buy products using deceit and fraud, just say so. -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 12:30:47 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-1.tricreations.com [216.205.16.110]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 658F221B1A for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 12:30:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.151]) by lamlaw.com ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 12:30:09 -0500 Message-ID: <385E6926.D18C19E9@lamlaw.com> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 09:36:38 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: am-info Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems References: <19991220170045.C71D521B1A@venice.essential.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mitch, Mitch Stone wrote: > > --- From a message sent by Eric Lee Green on 12/19/99 4:48 PM --- > > Well since you've just chided Lewis Mettler for using "always" in an > argument, I won't hesitate to suggest that it's inappropriate for you to > use it as well. Superior products _may_ survive in a market populated by > "free" (in fact, dumped) product. Or they may not. It depends largely on > economies of scale in the given industry. The examples you've provided > are (correct me if I'm wrong), freeware and/or opensource. These exist in > a different if not separate ecology from commercial products. > > >And if the non-bundled product is NOT superior, then who has been harmed > >by the > >bundled product? > > This is a bit too abstract a statement for me to accept on its face. Who > decides superiority? Why the market does of course, but clearly markets > are not monolithic things -- they should allow sufficient variation for > preference selection. If they don't, well, perhaps everybody is harmed, > if not now, then eventually, when the market becomes a monoculture and > not supportive of diversity. The quality of the bundled product is simply not relevant. Why? For several reasons. One, the customers needs determine that not anyone else. Second, the consumer has the right to either buy a superior or inferior product based upon cost and suitability. Read the findings of facts regarding harm caused by the forced sale of IE. The other question raised has already been illustrated. If you already have the product, you are harmed by the bundled product not matter what. Read the Bill Gates piece. Clearly Bill Gates wanted to use IE on his new PC but he already had that application. It is pure garbage to suggest that any consumer is not harmed when they MUST buy a product. By the way, the use of "always" should make it easy for at least someone to come up with an illustration that proves that "always" is false. I find it interesting that although I have made it easy for those promoters to show how bundling is not always harmful or unfair, they continue to fail to take the easy toss. Just keep in mind that even Bill Gates was harmed financially by the bundling of IE in that illustration. What that story about you as well? -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 13:43:38 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from dot.netrex.net (dot.netrex.net [206.253.225.51]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ACD221B2E for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 13:43:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from documentprocessing.com ([207.231.143.130]) by dot.netrex.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA00983 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 13:43:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <385E78C0.812F5B1E@documentprocessing.com> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 13:43:12 -0500 From: Christopher Pall Reply-To: chrisbp@documentprocessing.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: am-info References: <19991220170045.C71D521B1A@venice.essential.org> <385E6926.D18C19E9@lamlaw.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems > The other question raised has already been illustrated. If you already > have the product, you are harmed by the bundled product not matter > what. Read the Bill Gates piece. Clearly Bill Gates wanted to use IE > on his new PC but he already had that application. > > It is pure garbage to suggest that any consumer is not harmed when they > MUST buy a product. > Bundling is not evil. We all buy something that's bundled. Recently I got a fruit basket. It came "bundled" with oranges and apples. Since there is no evil orange monopoly trying to expand their market into the apple market - no harm no foul. Lewis - in his "Is Bill Gates Harmed by bundling?" essay - "Bill Gates himself is harmed financially due to the bundling of internet explorer with the operating system. He wants IE! He wants IE badly! He wants IE so badly it is killing him! But, he has to pay the higher bundled price because the local store will not or can not offer him or anyone else a discount for applications he already has. " First of all, he doesn't have the "app" as you call it. What he does have is an operating system. Now, I'm not going to argue tit-for-tat whether the browser is part of the operating system or not. Unix has had email/networking/dns and yes Virginia, browsing capability in it for years. Guess what? No-one really cares. The very basic reason that we even have a case is very simple: 1) Microsoft missed a very large and influential market that was up and coming. (www) 2) When Microsoft tried to compete in this market, they did so in a horrific fashion. It's very sad but true - but if Microsoft had been just a year or two earlier and gotten a simple web-browser out with Win95 before the whole Navigator thing got big - Nobody would have even noticed when Netscape never got any investment capital. This is exactly what the judge is talking about in the (nearly?) last paragraph of the findings of fact. I think we ought to get down to solving how we solve the real monopoly issues - such as near absolute control of distribution and absolute control of development that Microsoft has*. Then, perhaps, if we're up to it, how we're going to properly penalize a company which has so much in ill-gotten gains. I've got some ideas. Starts with breaking them up at least three ways, ends with multi-billion dollar corporate fines and mandated retirement for key Microsoft executives. Chris * = in addition to figuring out how to solve these issues - we'd need to figure out which companies other than Microsoft in the future might qualify under these same rules. Because it's clear companies like Apple completely control distribution and development on their platform, but I wouldn't argue that they have sufficiently infringed on a signifigant enough portion of the software/hardware market to warrant antitrust action. From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 13:45:25 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from cornerback.scott.af.mil (cornerback.scott.af.mil [140.175.214.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4898221B2E for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 13:45:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from cornerback.scott.af.mil (root@localhost) by cornerback.scott.af.mil with ESMTP id MAA24883; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 12:45:16 -0600 (CST) Received: from SMTP (vejxoisntav82.scott.af.mil [140.175.254.102]) by cornerback.scott.af.mil with SMTP id MAA24879; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 12:45:10 -0600 (CST) Received: from ksvejx02.SCOTT.AF.MIL ([140.175.192.102]) by 140.175.254.102 (Norton AntiVirus for Internet Email Gateways 1.0) ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:45:26 0000 (GMT) Received: by ksvejx02.scott.af.mil with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 12:45:52 -0600 Message-ID: <39E4F6703265D311BDA60000D11CEA359A820E@vejxoisnte78.scott.af.mil> From: Bockhorst Roland AFCA/ITLC 256-3488 To: "'declan@well.com'" , politech@vorlon.mit.edu Cc: am-info@venice.essential.org Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 12:45:37 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Am-info] RE: Bizarre: MS sends wrong box out, starts criminal investigatio n If the Posner's would cooperate, I'd bet a high powered lawyer with concerns about Microsoft's overstepping certain boundaries could have fun with this one. Roland > -----Original Message----- > From: Declan McCullagh [SMTP:declan@well.com] > Sent: Monday, December 20, 1999 8:56 AM > To: politech@vorlon.mit.edu > Subject: FC: Bizarre: MS sends wrong box out, starts criminal > investigation > > *********** > > >Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 13:28:22 -0500 > >From: [anonymized] > >Subject: bizarre ms story > > > >so lets see whats wrong with the story? MS fucks up and sends the > >wrong box out. they they make up a story about a non-existent theft > >to get the NYPD to retrieve the box from a poor elderly couple on NY > >upper east side (a well known hangout of high tech thieves) that was > >never stolen and these clueless reporters buy it. How about a story > >about MS abusing power by falsifying a police report to cover up > >corporate incompetence? > > > >-d > > > > Posted at 9:51 p.m. PST Friday, December 17, 1999 > > > >NYPD steps in to retrieve WebTV box > > > >BY NOAM LEVEY AND CECILIA KANG > >Mercury News Staff Writers > >The box marked WebTV in Microsoft Corp.'s Mountain View mail room > >probably looked like the perfect gift, a new toy worth a couple > >hundred dollars that no one would miss. > >But it was no ordinary box. After it disappeared last week, police > >investigators were told it held a prototype machine worth a million > >dollars. And Microsoft wanted it back. > >They'll get it. A cross-country hunt for the missing piece of > >high-tech wizardry found it Friday in the Manhattan home of a man who > >thought he had just received a great Hanukkah present. > >Microsoft officials, who feared that their next-generation technology > >had been filched by high-tech rivals, can breathe a little easier. > >Investigators believe the thief didn't even know what he was stealing. > >Microsoft's current generation of WebTV boxes, which sit on top of > >the TV and allow users to surf the Internet from their televisions, > >sell for about $200 at most retailers. But the VCR-sized box that > >disappeared could be worth millions, said detective Ted Rodgers, who > >worked the case out of Mountain View. > >``It's like any new technology out there,'' Rodgers said. ``It could > >be the next big thing, and if it's the next big thing and sells, it > >will generate millions. Or it could flop.'' > >Microsoft spokeswoman Pam Kahl would say only that the missing item > >was ``a very valuable box from a Microsoft perspective.'' > >According to police, someone with access to the mail room at > >Microsoft's WebTV facility in Mountain View changed the address label > >on the WebTV box last week and rerouted it from Redmond, Wash., to > >New York City. > >The alarm bells went off when workers at Microsoft's Redmond > >headquarters received only the cord that was supposed to connect to > >the box. > >Searching through United Parcel Service shipping records left by the > >unwitting thief, investigators learned that the missing machine was > >shipped to East 96th Street in Manhattan, and Thursday afternoon, > >Mountain View police alerted their counterparts at the New York > >Police Department. > >Investigators from the city's Computer Investigation and Technology > >unit swept in and confronted an unsuspecting Scott Posner, who told > >police he had just given the box to his father, who lived 10 blocks > >south. > >Samuel Posner hadn't even unpacked it. He handed it over without > >incident, according to New York police. > >Rodgers, who also works on Silicon Valley's high-tech crime task > >force, said the Posners did not say who sent the special gift. > >But he said investigators are confident this was not high-tech espionage. > >``It was just a really stupid theft,'' Rodgers said. ``There is no > >indication there was any kind of conspiracy to steal WebTV > >technology.'' > >Police are continuing their investigation. There have been no arrests. > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >Contact Noam Levey at nlevey@sjmercury.com or (650) 688-7577. Contact > >Cecilia Kang at ckang@sjmercury.com or (650) 920-5066. > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology > To subscribe: send a message to majordomo@vorlon.mit.edu with this text: > subscribe politech > More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 14:03:30 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-1.tricreations.com [216.205.16.110]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9517621B1C for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 14:03:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.151]) by lamlaw.com ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 14:02:58 -0500 Message-ID: <385E7EE7.4C9429C1@lamlaw.com> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 11:09:27 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: AM-INFO References: <19991220170045.C71D521B1A@venice.essential.org> <385E6926.D18C19E9@lamlaw.com> <385E78C0.812F5B1E@documentprocessing.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Am-info] Bill Gates was indeed harmed financially Christopher, Christopher Pall wrote: > > > The other question raised has already been illustrated. If you already > > have the product, you are harmed by the bundled product not matter > > what. Read the Bill Gates piece. Clearly Bill Gates wanted to use IE > > on his new PC but he already had that application. > > > > It is pure garbage to suggest that any consumer is not harmed when they > > MUST buy a product. > > > > Bundling is not evil. We all buy something that's bundled. Recently I got a > fruit basket. It came "bundled" with oranges and apples. Since there is no evil > orange monopoly trying to expand their market into the apple market - no harm > no foul. > > Lewis - in his "Is Bill Gates Harmed by bundling?" essay - > > "Bill Gates himself is harmed financially due to the bundling of internet > explorer with the operating system. He wants IE! He wants IE badly! He wants > IE so badly it is killing him! But, he has to pay the higher bundled price > because the local store will not or can not offer him or anyone else a discount > for applications he already has. " > > First of all, he doesn't have the "app" as you call it. What he does have is an > operating system. Now, I'm not going to argue tit-for-tat whether the browser > is part of the operating system or not. Unix has had email/networking/dns and > yes Virginia, browsing capability in it for years. Guess what? No-one really > cares. Bill downloaded IE 5 the day before so he did in fact have the application before he went shopping just like everyone else. Do you have IE 5? Then you too are harmed financially on the day you buy Windows 98. How much harm? The competitive value of that application. Do you have a copy of Word? Same thing. If Word is bundled with your new OS, they you are harmed by the competitive market value of Word when you are forced to buy yet another copy by bundling. > > The very basic reason that we even have a case is very simple: > > 1) Microsoft missed a very large and influential market that was up and coming. > (www) > 2) When Microsoft tried to compete in this market, they did so in a horrific > fashion. Incorrect. The antitrust case exists because Microsoft is forcing the sale of IE upon consumers. The result of that harms consumers directly on day one and ruins the market for that technology thus harming Netscape and Opera as well as all other intelligent software developers. -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 14:35:17 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from dot.netrex.net (dot.netrex.net [206.253.225.51]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE8EC21B4F for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 14:35:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from documentprocessing.com ([207.231.143.130]) by dot.netrex.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA02267; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 14:35:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <385E84D1.3B4E5FFF@documentprocessing.com> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 14:34:41 -0500 From: Christopher Pall Reply-To: chrisbp@documentprocessing.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Lewis A. Mettler" Cc: AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] Bill Gates was indeed harmed financially References: <19991220170045.C71D521B1A@venice.essential.org> <385E6926.D18C19E9@lamlaw.com> <385E78C0.812F5B1E@documentprocessing.com> <385E7EE7.4C9429C1@lamlaw.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit But he didn't have the operating system, which is something he has to pay for - regardless of whether __Microsoft or the OEM__ chose to bundle Netscape with it or not. Regardless of what he sold with it - it doesn't matter. Unless a monopoly is proven to exist and that same monpoly is using their monopolistic advantadges to run another a company out of business to extend their monopoly - it doesn't even matter. Thankfully, it's been proven. And no, I am not harmed by getting the bundled package of Win98 with IE because I'm not paying for IE no matter how many times you may tell me that I am. I am paying for the package. While I would completely agree with you that the cost is really there - the fact is that companies are allowed to bundle together products without being required to sell each item individually. I bought an orange yesterday. So today I went out to the store and saw this fruit basket with orange and apples. When I asked whether I could take out the orange from the fruit basket and pay less for the fruit basket, the store manager said, "stop wasting my time and go argue with someone on the internet." And so I did. I reiterate. I think we ought to get down to solving how we solve the real monopoly issues - such as near absolute control of distribution and absolute control of development that Microsoft has*. Then, perhaps, if we're up to it, how we're going to properly penalize a company which has so much in ill-gotten gains. I've got some ideas. Starts with breaking them up at least three ways, ends with multi-billion dollar corporate fines and mandated retirement for key Microsoft executives. Chris * = in addition to figuring out how to solve these issues - we'd need to figure out which companies other than Microsoft in the future might qualify under these same rules. Because it's clear companies like Apple completely control distribution and development on their platform, but I wouldn't argue that they have sufficiently infringed on a signifigant enough portion of the software/hardware market to warrant antitrust action. "Lewis A. Mettler" wrote: > Christopher, > > Christopher Pall wrote: > > > > > The other question raised has already been illustrated. If you already > > > have the product, you are harmed by the bundled product not matter > > > what. Read the Bill Gates piece. Clearly Bill Gates wanted to use IE > > > on his new PC but he already had that application. > > > > > > It is pure garbage to suggest that any consumer is not harmed when they > > > MUST buy a product. > > > > > > > Bundling is not evil. We all buy something that's bundled. Recently I got a > > fruit basket. It came "bundled" with oranges and apples. Since there is no evil > > orange monopoly trying to expand their market into the apple market - no harm > > no foul. > > > > Lewis - in his "Is Bill Gates Harmed by bundling?" essay - > > > > "Bill Gates himself is harmed financially due to the bundling of internet > > explorer with the operating system. He wants IE! He wants IE badly! He wants > > IE so badly it is killing him! But, he has to pay the higher bundled price > > because the local store will not or can not offer him or anyone else a discount > > for applications he already has. " > > > > First of all, he doesn't have the "app" as you call it. What he does have is an > > operating system. Now, I'm not going to argue tit-for-tat whether the browser > > is part of the operating system or not. Unix has had email/networking/dns and > > yes Virginia, browsing capability in it for years. Guess what? No-one really > > cares. > > Bill downloaded IE 5 the day before so he did in fact have the > application before he went shopping just like everyone else. > > Do you have IE 5? Then you too are harmed financially on the day you > buy Windows 98. > > How much harm? The competitive value of that application. > > Do you have a copy of Word? > > Same thing. If Word is bundled with your new OS, they you are harmed by > the competitive market value of Word when you are forced to buy yet > another copy by bundling. > From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 14:54:49 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-1.tricreations.com [216.205.16.110]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EAB9221BA4 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 14:54:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.151]) by lamlaw.com ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 14:54:02 -0500 Message-ID: <385E8AE0.5E34D7AA@lamlaw.com> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 12:00:32 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] Bill Gates was indeed harmed financially References: <19991220170045.C71D521B1A@venice.essential.org> <385E6926.D18C19E9@lamlaw.com> <385E78C0.812F5B1E@documentprocessing.com> <385E7EE7.4C9429C1@lamlaw.com> <385E84D1.3B4E5FFF@documentprocessing.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Christopher, He had the application. If he had Word would you force him to buy that again just because it was bundled? Christopher Pall wrote: > > But he didn't have the operating system, which is something he has to pay for - > regardless of whether __Microsoft or the OEM__ chose to bundle Netscape with it or > not. Regardless of what he sold with it - it doesn't matter. Unless a monopoly is > proven to exist and that same monpoly is using their monopolistic advantadges to > run another a company out of business to extend their monopoly - it doesn't even > matter. Thankfully, it's been proven. Fairness and consumer harm is caused directly by the forced sale. Having a monopoly is another matter. That makes it illegal as well. But, the harm is caused directly and financially by the bundling. > > And no, I am not harmed by getting the bundled package of Win98 with IE because I'm > not paying for IE no matter how many times you may tell me that I am. Even Microsoft says you pay for IE. Read their financial reports. Monopolists do not need to give you anything. And, I might add that Ballmer said the idea of free software was not in the Microsoft business plan. I agree. It is not. You have been defrauded if you think IE is free. > I am paying for > the package. Yes. And, every part of that package is allocated some of the money you paid. That is precisely why consumers must be given the option not to buy some of the bundled applications. You do not have to buy Excell just because you want Word. IE should be no different except Microsoft wants to force the sale of IE. > While I would completely agree with you that the cost is really there - > the fact is that companies are allowed to bundle together products without being > required to sell each item individually. If they are a monopolist, that is illegal. Whether or not they are a monopolist, you as a consumer are in fact harmed. If you think being harmed is fair, then I can not help you. > > I bought an orange yesterday. So today I went out to the store and saw this fruit > basket with orange and apples. When I asked whether I could take out the orange from > the fruit basket and pay less for the fruit basket, the store manager said, "stop > wasting my time and go argue with someone on the internet." And so I did. You can easily buy 1 orange in almost any market I know of. > > I reiterate. > > I think we ought to get down to solving how we solve the real monopoly issues - > such as near absolute control of distribution and absolute control of > development that Microsoft has*. Then, perhaps, if we're up to it, how we're > going to properly penalize a company which has so much in ill-gotten gains. And, ignore harmful business practices that substantially increase the cost of products to consumers? You must not be a consumer at all. No consumer would care what someone else buys. You seem to insist that everyone else buy IE. Sorry. You are a promoter. You clearly do not represent consumers. Not even Bill Gates when he shops. It does not matter if Bill Gates has or wants IE, Navigator or neither. When he and you are forced to buy it, you are financially harmed on that day. The only question is how much. And, Microsoft is keeping that figure secret so you are fooled. -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 15:44:15 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.7]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3C0A21B27 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 15:44:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from Magggie@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id 7.0.a7725629 (3975); Mon, 20 Dec 1999 15:43:57 -0500 (EST) From: Magggie@aol.com Message-ID: <0.a7725629.258fef0c@aol.com> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 15:43:56 EST Subject: Re: [Am-info] Bill Gates was indeed harmed financially To: chrisbp@documentprocessing.com, lmettler@lamlaw.com Cc: am-info@venice.essential.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45 Unsubscribe! From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 16:34:43 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from hotmail.com (oe31.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.24]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3C37F21BA6 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 16:34:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 53446 invoked by uid 65534); 20 Dec 1999 21:34:41 -0000 Message-ID: <19991220213441.53445.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.245.169.35] From: "Simon Cooke" To: References: <0.a7725629.258fef0c@aol.com> Subject: Re: [Am-info] Bill Gates was indeed harmed financially Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 13:34:39 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Heartfelt plea? If so, why are you directing it to Chris as well? :-) Simon -- Clairvoyeurism - the supernatural ability to predict what someone will look like naked. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; Cc: Sent: Monday, December 20, 1999 12:43 Subject: Re: [Am-info] Bill Gates was indeed harmed financially > Unsubscribe! > > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info > From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 16:48:21 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from dot.netrex.net (dot.netrex.net [206.253.225.51]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B405021B27 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 16:48:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from documentprocessing.com ([207.231.143.130]) by dot.netrex.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA05678 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 16:48:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <385EA404.1B134332@documentprocessing.com> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 16:47:48 -0500 From: Christopher Pall Reply-To: chrisbp@documentprocessing.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: aminfo Subject: Re: [Am-info] Bill Gates was indeed harmed financially References: <19991220170045.C71D521B1A@venice.essential.org> <385E6926.D18C19E9@lamlaw.com> <385E78C0.812F5B1E@documentprocessing.com> <385E7EE7.4C9429C1@lamlaw.com> <385E84D1.3B4E5FFF@documentprocessing.com> <385E8AE0.5E34D7AA@lamlaw.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >He had the application. > If he had Word would you force him to buy that again just because it was > bundled? If the consumer is allowed to buy whatever his heart desires. We don't attempt to regulate individual products, we regulate business pratice. It's far easier. I had an orange before I bought a fruit basket - who cares? I still end up buying the whole fruit basket. If ADM had monopolized the corn market, and was attempting to monopolize the apple market by bundling apples with their products, it would be a violation of business practices. But we dont' say you can't sell apples with corn - because it's just ridiculous. > > But he didn't have the operating system, which is something he has to pay for - > > regardless of whether __Microsoft or the OEM__ chose to bundle Netscape with it or > > not. Regardless of what he sold with it - it doesn't matter. Unless a monopoly is > > proven to exist and that same monpoly is using their monopolistic advantadges to > > run another a company out of business to extend their monopoly - it doesn't even > > matter. Thankfully, it's been proven. > > Fairness and consumer harm is caused directly by the forced sale. Having > a monopoly is another matter. That makes it illegal as well. But, the > harm is caused directly and financially by the bundling. > Fairness and consumer harm are results - not causes. Monopolies unto themselves are not illegal. There is only a lack of choice driven by poorly governed markets which have divested themselves into monopolies. > > > > And no, I am not harmed by getting the bundled package of Win98 with IE because I'm > > not paying for IE no matter how many times you may tell me that I am. > > Even Microsoft says you pay for IE. Read their financial reports. > I said you pay indirectly for IE - but that's doesn't matter one iota. What matters is the business practices of monopolies. > > You have been defrauded if you think IE is free. I'm in the clear. > > > I am paying for > > the package. > > Yes. And, every part of that package is allocated some of the money you > paid. > > That is precisely why consumers must be given the option not to buy some > of the bundled applications. > > You do not have to buy Excell just because you want Word. > Nope. Never said I did. But if I want to - I can - and it would be wrong to say it's illegal. > > IE should be no different except Microsoft wants to force the sale of > IE. And that's not a problem unless they are a) a monopoly b) attempting to extend their monopoly. > > > While I would completely agree with you that the cost is really there - > > the fact is that companies are allowed to bundle together products without being > > required to sell each item individually. > > If they are a monopolist, that is illegal. > > Whether or not they are a monopolist, you as a consumer are in fact > harmed. > > If you think being harmed is fair, then I can not help you. > Well, you've failed to prove actual financial harm beyond how you would like to see MS products priced. This is not to say I haven't been harmed financially or otherwise, just that I don't think that bundling itself is the problem. Which is what you are claiming here. > > > > > I bought an orange yesterday. So today I went out to the store and saw this fruit > > basket with orange and apples. When I asked whether I could take out the orange from > > the fruit basket and pay less for the fruit basket, the store manager said, "stop > > wasting my time and go argue with someone on the internet." And so I did. > > You can easily buy 1 orange in almost any market I know of. You're arguing that Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to bundle things together - or if Microsoft does - they should offer a rebate. That's the analogy I was going for. Not whether the choice is available or not - because that's an entirely different story. > > > > I reiterate. > > > > I think we ought to get down to solving how we solve the real monopoly issues - > > such as near absolute control of distribution and absolute control of > > development that Microsoft has*. Then, perhaps, if we're up to it, how we're > > going to properly penalize a company which has so much in ill-gotten gains. > > And, ignore harmful business practices that substantially increase the > cost of products to consumers? > > You must not be a consumer at all. > > No consumer would care what someone else buys. You seem to insist that > everyone else buy IE. I only insist that Microsoft be afforded the basic right of being able to create whatever bundles it wants - so long as it isn't attempting to extend it's monopolies into other regions. Just as Apple and every other mom and pop fruit stand is allowed to do. And I OBVIOUSLY believe that Microsoft is using windows as a mechanism (bundle) to extend it's monopoly. But simply unbundling IE isn't going to do it. Chris From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Sun Dec 19 23:56:30 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from mail0.mailsender.net (mail0.mailsender.net [209.132.1.30]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0EB221B9A for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 23:56:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from [216.78.82.87] (216.78.82.87) by mail0.mailsender.net; 19 Dec 1999 20:49:36 -0800 Message-ID: <385db56238619b01@mail0.mailsender.net> (added by mail0.mailsender.net) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 23:56:29 -0500 x-sender: mail%msbc.simplenet.com@mail.msbc.simplenet.com x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Paul Rickard To: "Am-Info" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: mail%msbc.simplenet.com@mail.msbc.simplenet.com Subject: [Am-info] Re: a coherent whole mstone@vc.net >I'd take this a bit further with the observation that Microsoft's >integration of IE into Win 98 represents a pretty stark admission that >they'd failed miserably in all of their previous efforts at creating a >coherent user experience. Slapping a browser on the front-end of Windows >was, from a user interface standpoint, a pretty desperate attempt to >create coherence where little existed. And from my admittedly biased >point of view, the Windows UI is still a pretty horrible muddle. For >exhibits A...Z, I offer you the Windows Annoyances web site. "Microsoft is going to argue that since most users are now familiar with the way a Web browser works, the browser will be an easier interface for novices to use in finding stuff on their own computers. And that might be true. But if it is true, it's an admission of awful truth for Microsoft: It's saying, 'After all these years and versions of Windows we still haven't figured out how to make personal computing easy enough for an intelligent person to learn easily.'" -Scott Rosenberg, Salon.com ======== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ======= --------------------------------[ Http://www.msboycott.com ]----------- From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Sun Dec 19 23:57:22 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from mail0.mailsender.net (mail0.mailsender.net [209.132.1.30]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB6CE21B9A for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 23:57:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from [216.78.82.87] (216.78.82.87) by mail0.mailsender.net; 19 Dec 1999 20:50:28 -0800 Message-ID: <385db59638619b67@mail0.mailsender.net> (added by mail0.mailsender.net) Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 23:57:21 -0500 x-sender: mail%msbc.simplenet.com@mail.msbc.simplenet.com x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Paul Rickard To: "AM Info" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: mail%msbc.simplenet.com@mail.msbc.simplenet.com elgreen@iname.com >And as a Wisconsonite I might want a VW New Beetle without air conditioning, >like many other Wisconsonites. > >The question is this: As a Wisconsonite, am I being harmed by VW's action in >bundling something I neither want nor need with their car? Should >residents of >Wisconson have grounds for a class-action anti-trust lawsuit because of the >bundling? Well, someday you may desire to sell that car to someone in, say, Georgia (like myself), and that person may well desire that it include air conditioning. You don't use the bundled product yourself, but it is useful to you because it adds value to the product you purchased. That extra $300 for air conditioning turns into an extra $75 when you sell it. Software could be the same - a CD with an OS on it that includes a browser is worth more than one without - except you are legally forbidden from selling the CD by an illegal contract between you and Microsoft that you unwillingly agreed to when you opened the box. Plus, there are so many free browsers floating around thanks to Microsoft that the added thing adds no value. End result: bundled car air conditioning actally does no harm, but bundled browser, combined with opressive EULA and market flooding, does. ======== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ======= --------------------------------[ Http://www.msboycott.com ]----------- From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Sun Dec 19 23:58:42 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from mtiwmhc04.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc04.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.39]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E55721B9A for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 23:58:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.79.213.184]) by mtiwmhc04.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with ESMTP id <19991220045841.UNLP2614@worldnet.att.net> for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 04:58:41 +0000 Sender: sujal@venice.essential.org Message-ID: <385DB702.943A834F@worldnet.att.net> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 23:56:34 -0500 From: Sujal Shah X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Multiple recipients of list AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems References: <199912192307.SAA09924@milan.essential.org> <99121918154103.07284@ehome.inhouse> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Eric M. Bennett" wrote: [SNIP] > For this reason, I would argue that force-bundling by a monopolist is > often dangerous if there is still significant innovation going on in > a given product area, even if the monopolist's product is currently a > little better. Whether the possible economic benefits to the > consumer that might arise from bundling outweighs this danger is > something that would have to be examined case by case. Not to be annoying, but how would you define force-bundling? This also raises the question, to me at least, whether the implication of what you're saying is that a monopolist can never bundle *anything*, even if the combination would be beneficial for consumers. I'm not sure I'd go that far. It may be that a desired result of the current case would be some precendent for guidelines on how to evaluate the cases of monopolists bundling items. I also don't think that "significant innovation" is a sufficient criteria for determining whether a bundle harms consumers. Rather, I think in general monopolists should have a limited, but clear set of guidelines to follow. For example, they can't preclude a customer from replacing the bundled item, they need to offer a basic option w/o the bundled software, and there must be a price difference between the two packages, etc., etc., etc. I'll end my rambling now. :-) Sujal > > -- > Eric Bennett / ericb@pobox.com / emb22@cornell.edu www.pobox.com/~ericb/ > Cornell University, Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology > > I am not a vegetarian because I love animals; I am a vegetarian because > I hate plants. -- A. Whitney Brown > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info -- ------ Sujal Shah ---- sujal@att.net http://www.sujal.net/ From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 17:18:20 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-1.tricreations.com [216.205.16.110]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 577D821BB1 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 17:18:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.199]) by lamlaw.com ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 17:17:42 -0500 Message-ID: <385EAC8D.1A04E91@lamlaw.com> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 14:24:13 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] Bill Gates was indeed harmed financially References: <19991220170045.C71D521B1A@venice.essential.org> <385E6926.D18C19E9@lamlaw.com> <385E78C0.812F5B1E@documentprocessing.com> <385E7EE7.4C9429C1@lamlaw.com> <385E84D1.3B4E5FFF@documentprocessing.com> <385E8AE0.5E34D7AA@lamlaw.com> <385EA404.1B134332@documentprocessing.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Christopher, Christopher Pall wrote: > > >He had the application. > > If he had Word would you force him to buy that again just because it was > > bundled? > > If the consumer is allowed to buy whatever his heart desires. We don't attempt to regulate > individual products, we regulate business pratice. It's far easier. It is the bundling that harms consumers and precludes competitors. It is also the monopoly power that permits Microsoft to bundle and force the sale of IE. Regulating business practices will mean absolutely nothing if you ignore bundling practices, product ties and designing one product so that the consumer must in fact buy yet another one. Microsoft does not need any agreement at all with OEMs if only one product is available. > > I had an orange before I bought a fruit basket - who cares? I still end up buying the > whole fruit basket. If ADM had monopolized the corn market, and was attempting to > monopolize the apple market by bundling apples with their products, it would be a > violation of business practices. But we dont' say you can't sell apples with corn - > because it's just ridiculous. If you have a choice there is no problem. But, if you do not have a choice there is. Suites are okay provided that the products are available separately. Why is it that no one on this list acknowledges the difference between a forced bundle and a suite? Is buying an OS with and without a browser supposed to harm someone? Or, confuse them? > > > > But he didn't have the operating system, which is something he has to pay for - > > > regardless of whether __Microsoft or the OEM__ chose to bundle Netscape with it or > > > not. Regardless of what he sold with it - it doesn't matter. Unless a monopoly is > > > proven to exist and that same monpoly is using their monopolistic advantadges to > > > run another a company out of business to extend their monopoly - it doesn't even > > > matter. Thankfully, it's been proven. > > > > Fairness and consumer harm is caused directly by the forced sale. Having > > a monopoly is another matter. That makes it illegal as well. But, the > > harm is caused directly and financially by the bundling. > > > > Fairness and consumer harm are results - not causes. Monopolies unto themselves are not > illegal. There is only a lack of choice driven by poorly governed markets which have > divested themselves into monopolies. True. Bundling causes the harm and is unfair. Harm caused by bundling is not limited to only those products sold by monopolists. This is why you must distinguish between legal and illegal bundling and product tie-ins. For a monopolist, it is illegal. For everyone else, it is only harmful to consumers and unfair to them. Why? Because they may already have the bundled product and should never be required to purchase it again and again and again and again simply because they need some other product or want to upgrade a product they have. Again, consider office suites. Should you be required to buy the whole suite if you only want to upgrade your spreadsheet or data base package? I can not understand why. That should be and is the choice of the consumer. Likewise, all consumers should be able to upgrade or buy an OS without being required to repurchase or purchase for the first time any application unless they choose to do so. Bundling prevents that. And, that is why and how bundling is harmful and unfair. > > > > > > > And no, I am not harmed by getting the bundled package of Win98 with IE because I'm > > > not paying for IE no matter how many times you may tell me that I am. > > > > Even Microsoft says you pay for IE. Read their financial reports. > > > > I said you pay indirectly for IE - but that's doesn't matter one iota. What matters is the > business practices of monopolies. Sorry. Consumers have the absolute right to not "take" IE. Period. If an individual consumer does not want IE (for any reason whatsoever) they have the right to leave it at the store and take a discount or pay less. Otherwise you are simply forcing consumers to buy products they themselves know for a fact they do not want nor need. If you are going to start screwing consumers that way, then open your wallet. I think you should be forced to buy Paradox and Quattro Pro, right? They are good packages. I think you should be forced to buy a nice contact management package. I'll pick the brand. I think you should be forced to buy Lantastic for your networking, right? Or Novell, right? If you are going to support the forced sale of any product (software, hardware or whatever), I can make up the list so that you will understand the stupidity of that suggestion of yours. > > > > > You have been defrauded if you think IE is free. > > I'm in the clear. Not if you have a copy of Windows. Even a portion of NT Server goes to IE according to Microsoft Corporation. > > > > > > I am paying for > > > the package. > > > > Yes. And, every part of that package is allocated some of the money you > > paid. > > > > That is precisely why consumers must be given the option not to buy some > > of the bundled applications. > > > > You do not have to buy Excell just because you want Word. > > > > Nope. Never said I did. But if I want to - I can - and it would be wrong to say it's > illegal. If you have a choice, I agree. Choice is the key here. If you do not have a choice, then you are harmed financially. And, all consumers I know consider it unfair when financially harmed. If you are forced to buy from a monopolist, then it may also be illegal. > > > > > IE should be no different except Microsoft wants to force the sale of > > IE. > > And that's not a problem unless they are a) a monopoly b) attempting to extend their > monopoly. In Microsoft's case that is true. However, the harm and unfairness applies regardless of monopoly status. > > > > > > While I would completely agree with you that the cost is really there - > > > the fact is that companies are allowed to bundle together products without being > > > required to sell each item individually. > > > > If they are a monopolist, that is illegal. > > > > Whether or not they are a monopolist, you as a consumer are in fact > > harmed. > > > > If you think being harmed is fair, then I can not help you. > > > > Well, you've failed to prove actual financial harm beyond how you would like to see MS > products priced. The price charged consumers for IE is not disclosed. Not knowing the price only means you do not know how much the harm is. It does not mean no harm occurred. > > This is not to say I haven't been harmed financially or otherwise, just that I don't think > that bundling itself is the problem. Which is what you are claiming here. Bundling in fact removes your choice as a consumer. Compare to a suite of products. If you can buy just WordPerfect, then the suite does not hurt you. If only the suite is available, then the suite does hurt you if you do not actually want all of the products contained therein. This is a determination made by each individual consumer based upon their particular case. > > > > > > > > > I bought an orange yesterday. So today I went out to the store and saw this fruit > > > basket with orange and apples. When I asked whether I could take out the orange from > > > the fruit basket and pay less for the fruit basket, the store manager said, "stop > > > wasting my time and go argue with someone on the internet." And so I did. > > > > You can easily buy 1 orange in almost any market I know of. > > You're arguing that Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to bundle things together - or if > Microsoft does - they should offer a rebate. That's the analogy I was going for. Not > whether the choice is available or not - because that's an entirely different story. Separate products should be sold separately. Otherwise, it is a bundle and is therefore unfair and harmful. Again, office suites do not cause this harm since most products contained therein can be purchased separately. I find it interesting that all those who refuse to acknowledge harm by bundling also refuse to acknowledge the difference between a suite of products also available separately and bundles where that is not the case. Bundles cause harm that suites do not. > > > > > > > I reiterate. > > > > > > I think we ought to get down to solving how we solve the real monopoly issues - > > > such as near absolute control of distribution and absolute control of > > > development that Microsoft has*. Then, perhaps, if we're up to it, how we're > > > going to properly penalize a company which has so much in ill-gotten gains. > > > > > And, ignore harmful business practices that substantially increase the > > cost of products to consumers? > > > > You must not be a consumer at all. > > > > No consumer would care what someone else buys. You seem to insist that > > everyone else buy IE. > > I only insist that Microsoft be afforded the basic right of being able to create whatever > bundles it wants - so long as it isn't attempting to extend it's monopolies into other > regions. Just as Apple and every other mom and pop fruit stand is allowed to do. Microsoft has absolutely no right to force the sale of any product upon anyone. They can not do that by product design nor packaging. That is illegal. > > And I OBVIOUSLY believe that Microsoft is using windows as a mechanism (bundle) to extend > it's monopoly. But simply unbundling IE isn't going to do it. Simply unbundling it is not enough. I agree. The monopoly power itself must be addressed and eliminated. -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 17:24:08 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-1.tricreations.com [216.205.16.110]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 69C3021B39 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 17:24:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.199]) by lamlaw.com ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 17:23:36 -0500 Message-ID: <385EADEF.CE23C32A@lamlaw.com> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 14:30:07 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: AM Info Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems References: <385db59638619b67@mail0.mailsender.net> (added by mail0.mailsender.net) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Paul, And I think everyone should be forced to buy Paradox. That will increase the value of your system on resale as well, right? Why do people still argue that any consumers should be forced to buy any product? Where does that stupid idea come from, anyway? Has anyone gone on record as giving up their right to decide what they buy? I do not recall any such post at all (here or anywhere else). All those who argue for bundling are only attempting to force the sale of their crap upon others. Period. They refuse to let any consumers decide what they buy. Paul Rickard wrote: > > elgreen@iname.com > > >And as a Wisconsonite I might want a VW New Beetle without air conditioning, > >like many other Wisconsonites. > > > >The question is this: As a Wisconsonite, am I being harmed by VW's action in > >bundling something I neither want nor need with their car? Should > >residents of > >Wisconson have grounds for a class-action anti-trust lawsuit because of the > >bundling? > > Well, someday you may desire to sell that car to someone in, say, > Georgia (like myself), and that person may well desire that it include > air conditioning. You don't use the bundled product yourself, but it is > useful to you because it adds value to the product you purchased. That > extra $300 for air conditioning turns into an extra $75 when you sell it. > Software could be the same - a CD with an OS on it that includes a > browser is worth more than one without - except you are legally forbidden > from selling the CD by an illegal contract between you and Microsoft that > you unwillingly agreed to when you opened the box. Plus, there are so > many free browsers floating around thanks to Microsoft that the added > thing adds no value. End result: bundled car air conditioning actally > does no harm, but bundled browser, combined with opressive EULA and > market flooding, does. > > ======== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ======= > --------------------------------[ Http://www.msboycott.com ]----------- > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 17:35:02 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-1.tricreations.com [216.205.16.110]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3F6B621BCD for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 17:35:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.199]) by lamlaw.com ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 17:34:26 -0500 Message-ID: <385EB079.5C4C558F@lamlaw.com> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 14:40:57 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Multiple recipients of list AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems References: <199912192307.SAA09924@milan.essential.org> <99121918154103.07284@ehome.inhouse> <385DB702.943A834F@worldnet.att.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sujal, Sujal Shah wrote: > > "Eric M. Bennett" wrote: > [SNIP] > > For this reason, I would argue that force-bundling by a monopolist is > > often dangerous if there is still significant innovation going on in > > a given product area, even if the monopolist's product is currently a > > little better. Whether the possible economic benefits to the > > consumer that might arise from bundling outweighs this danger is > > something that would have to be examined case by case. > > Not to be annoying, but how would you define force-bundling? This also > raises the question, to me at least, whether the implication of what > you're saying is that a monopolist can never bundle *anything*, even if > the combination would be beneficial for consumers. I'm not sure I'd go > that far. Do you insist upon deciding for the consumer? A bundle prevents the consumer from not buying the product. Can you think of any product that so good and so beneficial that all consumers should be forced to buy it? Name the product. What product can possibly be so good that forcing consumers to buy it only benefits them? Are you selling "snake oil" that cures all ills? Are you selling "ice cream" that makes everyone fell good? (assuming they can eat dairy products) Are you selling aspirins? What are you selling anyway? No product is that good. IE is clearly not the product that qualifies in that way. > > It may be that a desired result of the current case would be some > precendent for guidelines on how to evaluate the cases of monopolists > bundling items. I also don't think that "significant innovation" is a > sufficient criteria for determining whether a bundle harms consumers. Bundling harms because it forces the sale. Neither the identity nor the quality is even relevant. It does not matter what the bundled product is. Put any product you want in that box. Go ahead. Pick one. Pick any product you want from medicine to food to hard goods. No product regardless of what it is has such value that forcing consumers to buy it avoids harm to them and avoids being unfair to them. Pick one. Do not limit yourself to IE. Do not limit yourself to computer software. Do not limit yourself to computer stuff. Pick any product you want available anywhere on earth. You can not bundle it without cause harm and being unfair. Please. Pick a product. Any product you want. It is not bubblegum. It is not IE. It is not aspirins. It is not coffee. It is not ice cream. It is not a radio. See if you can come up with a single product that if forced upon consumers does not harm them and is not unfair to them. All products are harmful when bundled. IE is only the current product being forced that way. -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 18:02:52 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from vcnet.com (mail.vcnet.com [209.239.239.15]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8A10521B27 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:02:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 28303 invoked from network); 20 Dec 1999 23:02:50 -0000 Received: from port142.dial.vcnet.com (HELO ?209.239.238.142?) (209.239.238.142) by mail.vcnet.com with SMTP; 20 Dec 1999 23:02:50 -0000 Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 15:02:50 -0800 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Mitch Stone To: "am-info" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-Id: <19991220230251.8A10521B27@venice.essential.org> --- From a message sent by Christopher Pall on 12/20/99 10:43 AM --- >* = in addition to figuring out how to solve these issues - we'd need to >figure >out which companies other than Microsoft in the future might qualify under >these same rules. Because it's clear companies like Apple completely control >distribution and development on their platform, but I wouldn't argue that >they >have sufficiently infringed on a signifigant enough portion of the >software/hardware market to warrant antitrust action. Well okay, but be very careful about how you scale markets, because every company has a "monopoly" over the products they create -- perfectly legal and government-sanctioned monopolies called patents and copyrights. Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 18:09:35 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from relay20.smtp.psi.net (relay20.smtp.psi.net [38.8.20.2]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9178321B38 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:09:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from [199.3.133.66] (helo=baron) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for am-info@lists.essential.org id 120Bvq-00015l-00; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:09:35 -0500 Message-ID: <00b401bf4b3f$238b0740$5b01f7a5@baron> From: "pap" To: "AM-INFO" Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:08:20 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems FWIW, below is the full text of a post that caught the list software change mid-stream. Lewis's response, which follows, did not quote the full message and he had no way of knowing that remarks might be out of context ------------- >Clearly Judge Jackson has not been fooled by the bundling issue. >He understands it. This is true. More to the point, he understood it. He did try to restrain cementing the browser with the soon to be released OS. He knew that he had to break the chain if he could. He knew what they were up to, maintaining momentum. It was overturned. The OS came out with IE4, just a barely warmed over IE3. In very short order IE5 appeared and it was orders of magnitude superior to anything in the market. It has won widespread support because it is very good. So is the OS. It must have been a monumental effort to get as much right as there is. It has even been enhanced since. If IE were detached from the OS tomorrow and sold separately, it would make no difference whatsoever. It would be the browser of choice. It helps that there is not much else in the space, but it is good and it does not crash the system near as often as it's predecessors or competitors did. That is a big point with the buyer. They had no choice other than to get it right this time. Seems like the game was to say phooey to the Judge's order, appeal and buy enough time to throw even more resource at it till it did not matter who else was in the space, which is what has happened along with more user support and trade press accolades. 'We'll show you who can build software!' They just fully exercised their legal rights.. One has to wonder if the torrid pace would have commenced were it not for the circumstances. This company is not asleep at the switch. They are just as nimble as ever. This case means little to them other than a cost of doing business. The only real change thus far is less OEM high jinx and the way has been widened with the venture folks for other platforms. That by itself will have the most positive effects on the market into the future. We are not going to fix much back on the trail, it will be out of sight tomorrow. Think about it. -pap ------------------- Pap, pap wrote: >> >> >Clearly Judge Jackson has not been fooled by the bundling issue. >> >> >He understands it. >> >> This is true. More to the point, he understood it. He did try to restrain >> cementing the browser with the soon to be released OS. He knew that he had >> to break the chain if he could. He knew what they were up to, maintaining >> momentum. >> >> It was overturned. >Notice of an injunctive relief was not given. He was not overturned on >the facts of the case. That is correct but the effect was the same - damn the torpedoes... >> >> The OS came out with IE4, just a barely warmed over IE3. >> >> In very short order IE5 appeared and it was orders of magnitude superior to >> anything in the market. >So what? The quality of the product is completely and totally not >relevant. True for your point but not for the market. >> >> It has won widespread support because it is very good. So is the OS. It must >> have been a monumental effort to get as much right as there is. It has even >> been enhanced since. >Millions of consumers are being forced to buy IE. The quality of the >product is completely non relevant. Again I agree. But it does have the effect of setting a benchmark for competing products that have an even greater uphill struggle now and may fall by the wayside. >IE could cure AIDS and its sale would be harmful. I would expect a press release soon on the subject. >Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) Regards, -pap From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 18:11:53 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-1.tricreations.com [216.205.16.110]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1F99F21BC2 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:11:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.199]) by lamlaw.com ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:11:18 -0500 Message-ID: <385EB91D.E1DC0166@lamlaw.com> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 15:17:49 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: am-info Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems References: <19991220230251.8A10521B27@venice.essential.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mitch, Mitch Stone wrote: > > --- From a message sent by Christopher Pall on 12/20/99 10:43 AM --- > > >* = in addition to figuring out how to solve these issues - we'd need to > >figure > >out which companies other than Microsoft in the future might qualify under > >these same rules. Because it's clear companies like Apple completely control > >distribution and development on their platform, but I wouldn't argue that > >they > >have sufficiently infringed on a signifigant enough portion of the > >software/hardware market to warrant antitrust action. > > Well okay, but be very careful about how you scale markets, because every > company has a "monopoly" over the products they create -- perfectly legal > and government-sanctioned monopolies called patents and copyrights. Patents and copyrights as well as trademarks do give companies certain exclusive marketing capabilities, but they do not all equate to monopoly power. Only Bayer can sell Bayer aspirins. But, Bayer can not set the price for aspirins in the marketplace. There are many readily available substitutes for Bayer aspirins. (By the way, "aspirin" used to be trademark owned by Bayer.) You must consider whether there are readily available substitutes for products. That determination will help you decide whether a company can bundle products and preclude competitors from the market. It also decides whether they can control prices. As for which companies can get into antitrust trouble, the answer is almost anyone. That is why most major corporations have an active antitrust compliance program. Microsoft does not. Microsoft tells its lawyers to ignore those laws and just send the legal bill for payment. "To hell with consumers and Microsoft customers", in other words. -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 18:17:48 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from vcnet.com (mail.vcnet.com [209.239.239.15]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4C51021BC2 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:17:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 37185 invoked from network); 20 Dec 1999 23:17:46 -0000 Received: from port142.dial.vcnet.com (HELO ?209.239.238.142?) (209.239.238.142) by mail.vcnet.com with SMTP; 20 Dec 1999 23:17:46 -0000 Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 15:17:46 -0800 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Mitch Stone To: "am-info" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-Id: <19991220231748.4C51021BC2@venice.essential.org> Subject: [Am-info] Be, Compaq in software licensing agreement Be, Compaq in software licensing agreement By Jim Davis December 20, 1999, 12:35 p.m. PT http://home.cnet.com/category/0-1006-200-1501085.html Be Inc., the operating system developer that's been looking for ways to move into the mainstream of computing, landed a licensing agreement with Compaq Computer that could lead to Compaq-Be Internet appliances. The announcement marks one of the first deals to result from Be's revised strategy to target the emerging market for information appliances. Earlier this year, Be said it was working with National Semiconductor to port its software to a variety of appliance prototypes, including National's Web tablet. One potential area of cooperation with Compaq is in Internet terminals, stripped-down PCs designed for Web surfing and e-mail delivery. At the Comdex trade show earlier this year, Compaq unveiled such a device, code-named "Clipper," which will be sold by telecommunications carriers to the public as a simplified way to get onto the Net. Microsoft has already announced plans for taking a Windows CE-enabled version of Clipper and selling it as the MSN Web Companion. Sources at Compaq, however, have said that other communications carriers are looking at the device and considering different operating systems. Nonetheless, just because an agreement between Compaq and Be is in place doesn't necessarily guarantee a spot at the table for the company. "We have a licensing agreement in place if we decide to proceed with them in the future," said Hedy Baker, a spokeswoman for Compaq. "This doesn't imply or guarantee that we will use their operating system." Be also faces a variety of competitors in this field, including Spyglass, Gateway's Amiga division, Microsoft, Liberate Technologies, Wind River Systems and numerous others. Many of these companies are also working with National Semiconductor on the Web Pad and other devices. Still, Be executives are optimistic that its products are well suited to the marketplace. "Since Be is a modern operating system, it can be tailored to fit the sort of devices we're talking about here," said Lamar Potts, vice president of marketing for Be. "With what we will have in the time frame it will be available, we think we're ahead of the marketplace in terms of providing all of the services [needed] for a full featured Web experience." Be's stock, which has sat at the 6 to 14 level most of this year, shot up to 38 last week on rumors that the company would be acquired by Red Hat. In late trading, the stock was up more than 7 percent to 28.63. Be was founded in 1990 by former Apple executive Jean-Louis Gassee as, essentially, an alternative to Apple's Mac OS. The Be system was widely touted for its multimedia capabilities but to date has not achieved widespread distribution on its originally intended destination, the desktop PC, or information appliances. In 1996, Apple attempted to negotiate a purchase of Be, but discussions foundered over price. Apple eventually chose to purchase Next Software, which was run and part-owned by Apple cofounder Steve Jobs, for $400 million, far more than the company was offering Be. Since then, Be has been refining its operating system for use in information appliances and landing some bundling deals with companies such as Hitachi and Microworkz. This past February, the company offered to give its system free to computer makers on the condition that it was the first interface a consumer would see. Few takers arrived. In May, the company more seriously began discussing the Net appliance market as part of its plans to go public. For Compaq, the arrangement provides the company with access to another software technology to use in lieu of Microsoft's Windows CE, which many industry analysts view as too costly and inefficient for use in some types of information appliances. Compaq has also experimented with the use of Linux in appliances such as TV set-top devices that can access Web-based material. The move toward simplified information appliances will likely change how hardware companies operate. In the past, Compaq and other PC companies manufactured and marketed their products in a fairly autonomous manner. Profit was made largely from the difference between retail prices and costs. By contrast, in the device world, the retail price is typically higher than the cost. The difference gets made up in service deals and e-commerce alliances, which means that hardware makers depend upon alliances with other companies if they hope to make a profit. "Where the money is to be made will be the Web sites, the relationships and partnerships with the Web sites via traffic, e-commerce and revenue sharing," said Mike Larson, senior vice president and general manager of Compaq's consumer division, in an earlier interview with CNET News.com. ------------------------------------------------------- From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 18:17:50 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from vcnet.com (mail.vcnet.com [209.239.239.15]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5AA2521BEF for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:17:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 37210 invoked from network); 20 Dec 1999 23:17:48 -0000 Received: from port142.dial.vcnet.com (HELO ?209.239.238.142?) (209.239.238.142) by mail.vcnet.com with SMTP; 20 Dec 1999 23:17:48 -0000 Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: a coherent whole Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 15:17:48 -0800 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Mitch Stone To: "Am-Info" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-Id: <19991220231749.5AA2521BEF@venice.essential.org> --- From a message sent by Paul Rickard on 12/19/99 8:56 PM --- >mstone@vc.net > >>I'd take this a bit further with the observation that Microsoft's >>integration of IE into Win 98 represents a pretty stark admission that >>they'd failed miserably in all of their previous efforts at creating a >>coherent user experience. Slapping a browser on the front-end of Windows >>was, from a user interface standpoint, a pretty desperate attempt to >>create coherence where little existed. And from my admittedly biased >>point of view, the Windows UI is still a pretty horrible muddle. For >>exhibits A...Z, I offer you the Windows Annoyances web site. > > "Microsoft is going to argue that since most users are now familiar with > the way a Web browser works, the browser will be an easier interface >for > novices to use in finding stuff on their own computers. And that might >be > true. But if it is true, it's an admission of awful truth for >Microsoft: > It's saying, 'After all these years and versions of Windows we still > haven't figured out how to make personal computing easy enough for an > intelligent person to learn easily.'" -Scott Rosenberg, Salon.com So your point is...? Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 18:20:08 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-1.tricreations.com [216.205.16.110]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 37D8D21C12 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:20:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.199]) by lamlaw.com ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:19:35 -0500 Message-ID: <385EBB0E.BC8F236A@lamlaw.com> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 15:26:06 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: AM-INFO Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Am-info] peanut butter and jelly sandwich From a cure for cancer to a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, it does not matter what product is bundled with Windows. Read the bubblegum deal. You will either buy the gum or you will switch your OS or you will die in place. Same with the jawbreaker deal. It does not matter what the bundled product is. You like "peanut butter" as Bill Gates likes IE? Does not matter. You want to cure cancer? Does not matter. Consumers would be harmed if forced to buy treatment for a cancer cure as well as any other product. Microsoft claims that no one could possible be harmed by being forced to buy a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, right? That is their public cry, right? I have even seen posts on this list just as stupid. But, if you are allergic to peanuts, you can be harmed. If you are not hungry, you can be harmed. If you already have a peanut sandwich (like Bill Gates), you are likewise harmed. If you prefer a ham sandwich, you are harmed. You can go right down the list using any product you want. Bundling is in fact inherently unfair to consumers and harmful to boot. Pick any product you want. -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 18:30:02 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from dot.netrex.net (dot.netrex.net [206.253.225.51]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C286C21BF7 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:30:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from documentprocessing.com ([207.231.143.130]) by dot.netrex.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA07826 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:30:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <385EBBD6.938FF00D@documentprocessing.com> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:29:26 -0500 From: Christopher Pall Reply-To: chrisbp@documentprocessing.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: aminfo Subject: Re: [Am-info] peanut butter and jelly sandwich References: <385EBB0E.BC8F236A@lamlaw.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lewis, the fact of the matter is that you can't tell customers what they will or will not get with their operating systems. You still haven't proven why bundling oranges with apples is any less harmfull than bundling Lynx with Unix. "Lewis A. Mettler" wrote: > >From a cure for cancer to a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, it does > not matter what product is bundled with Windows. Read the bubblegum > deal. You will either buy the gum or you will switch your OS or you > will die in place. Same with the jawbreaker deal. It does not matter > what the bundled product is. > > You like "peanut butter" as Bill Gates likes IE? Does not matter. > > You want to cure cancer? Does not matter. Consumers would be harmed if > forced to buy treatment for a cancer cure as well as any other product. > > Microsoft claims that no one could possible be harmed by being forced to > buy a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, right? That is their public > cry, right? > > I have even seen posts on this list just as stupid. > > But, if you are allergic to peanuts, you can be harmed. > > If you are not hungry, you can be harmed. > > If you already have a peanut sandwich (like Bill Gates), you are > likewise harmed. > > If you prefer a ham sandwich, you are harmed. > > You can go right down the list using any product you want. > > Bundling is in fact inherently unfair to consumers and harmful to boot. > > Pick any product you want. > > -- > Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) > lmettler@LAMLaw.com > http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust > trial) > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 18:33:43 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from dot.netrex.net (dot.netrex.net [206.253.225.51]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F163A21BEF for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:33:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from documentprocessing.com ([207.231.143.130]) by dot.netrex.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA07930 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:33:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <385EBCB3.4AD2C1D6@documentprocessing.com> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:33:07 -0500 From: Christopher Pall Reply-To: chrisbp@documentprocessing.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: aminfo Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems References: <199912192307.SAA09924@milan.essential.org> <99121918154103.07284@ehome.inhouse> <385DB702.943A834F@worldnet.att.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It's hard to argue with intentions. What are the intentions of any particular product - that's what needs to be evalutated when monopolies are "integrating" - are they attempting to grow a new business or destroy an existing one through an established monopoly? Sujal Shah wrote: > "Eric M. Bennett" wrote: > [SNIP] > > For this reason, I would argue that force-bundling by a monopolist is > > often dangerous if there is still significant innovation going on in > > a given product area, even if the monopolist's product is currently a > > little better. Whether the possible economic benefits to the > > consumer that might arise from bundling outweighs this danger is > > something that would have to be examined case by case. > > Not to be annoying, but how would you define force-bundling? This also > raises the question, to me at least, whether the implication of what > you're saying is that a monopolist can never bundle *anything*, even if > the combination would be beneficial for consumers. I'm not sure I'd go > that far. > > It may be that a desired result of the current case would be some > precendent for guidelines on how to evaluate the cases of monopolists > bundling items. I also don't think that "significant innovation" is a > sufficient criteria for determining whether a bundle harms consumers. > Rather, I think in general monopolists should have a limited, but clear > set of guidelines to follow. For example, they can't preclude a > customer from replacing the bundled item, they need to offer a basic > option w/o the bundled software, and there must be a price difference > between the two packages, etc., etc., etc. > > I'll end my rambling now. :-) > > Sujal > > > > > -- > > Eric Bennett / ericb@pobox.com / emb22@cornell.edu www.pobox.com/~ericb/ > > Cornell University, Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology > > > > I am not a vegetarian because I love animals; I am a vegetarian because > > I hate plants. -- A. Whitney Brown > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Am-info mailing list > > Am-info@lists.essential.org > > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info > > -- > ------ Sujal Shah ---- sujal@att.net > > http://www.sujal.net/ > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info -- Christopher Pall Document Processing Inc. Systems Analyst/Programmer (800)526-2255 ext. 110 From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 18:38:13 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-2.tricreations.com [216.205.16.111]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A14C321B27 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:38:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.199]) by lamlaw.com ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:37:44 -0500 Message-ID: <385EBF47.C54A3D15@lamlaw.com> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 15:44:07 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] peanut butter and jelly sandwich References: <385EBB0E.BC8F236A@lamlaw.com> <385EBBD6.938FF00D@documentprocessing.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Christopher, Bundling any two products is unfair to consumers and harmful. Pick any two you want. Christopher Pall wrote: > > Lewis, the fact of the matter is that you can't tell customers what they > will or will not get with their operating systems. You still haven't proven > why bundling oranges with apples is any less harmfull than bundling Lynx > with Unix. > > "Lewis A. Mettler" wrote: > > > >From a cure for cancer to a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, it does > > not matter what product is bundled with Windows. Read the bubblegum > > deal. You will either buy the gum or you will switch your OS or you > > will die in place. Same with the jawbreaker deal. It does not matter > > what the bundled product is. > > > > You like "peanut butter" as Bill Gates likes IE? Does not matter. > > > > You want to cure cancer? Does not matter. Consumers would be harmed if > > forced to buy treatment for a cancer cure as well as any other product. > > > > Microsoft claims that no one could possible be harmed by being forced to > > buy a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, right? That is their public > > cry, right? > > > > I have even seen posts on this list just as stupid. > > > > But, if you are allergic to peanuts, you can be harmed. > > > > If you are not hungry, you can be harmed. > > > > If you already have a peanut sandwich (like Bill Gates), you are > > likewise harmed. > > > > If you prefer a ham sandwich, you are harmed. > > > > You can go right down the list using any product you want. > > > > Bundling is in fact inherently unfair to consumers and harmful to boot. > > > > Pick any product you want. > > > > -- > > Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) > > lmettler@LAMLaw.com > > http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust > > trial) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Am-info mailing list > > Am-info@lists.essential.org > > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 18:41:29 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from dot.netrex.net (dot.netrex.net [206.253.225.51]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E68421B7D for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:41:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from documentprocessing.com ([207.231.143.130]) by dot.netrex.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA08040 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:41:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <385EBE85.E5EB3148@documentprocessing.com> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:40:53 -0500 From: Christopher Pall Reply-To: chrisbp@documentprocessing.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: aminfo Subject: Re: [Am-info] peanut butter and jelly sandwich References: <385EBB0E.BC8F236A@lamlaw.com> <385EBBD6.938FF00D@documentprocessing.com> <385EBF47.C54A3D15@lamlaw.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The OS shell (explorer.exe gui or command.com) and the OS. Fair bundle? Chris "Lewis A. Mettler" wrote: > Christopher, > > Bundling any two products is unfair to consumers and harmful. > > Pick any two you want. > > Christopher Pall wrote: > > > > Lewis, the fact of the matter is that you can't tell customers what they > > will or will not get with their operating systems. You still haven't proven > > why bundling oranges with apples is any less harmfull than bundling Lynx > > with Unix. > > > > "Lewis A. Mettler" wrote: > > > > > >From a cure for cancer to a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, it does > > > not matter what product is bundled with Windows. Read the bubblegum > > > deal. You will either buy the gum or you will switch your OS or you > > > will die in place. Same with the jawbreaker deal. It does not matter > > > what the bundled product is. > > > > > > You like "peanut butter" as Bill Gates likes IE? Does not matter. > > > > > > You want to cure cancer? Does not matter. Consumers would be harmed if > > > forced to buy treatment for a cancer cure as well as any other product. > > > > > > Microsoft claims that no one could possible be harmed by being forced to > > > buy a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, right? That is their public > > > cry, right? > > > > > > I have even seen posts on this list just as stupid. > > > > > > But, if you are allergic to peanuts, you can be harmed. > > > > > > If you are not hungry, you can be harmed. > > > > > > If you already have a peanut sandwich (like Bill Gates), you are > > > likewise harmed. > > > > > > If you prefer a ham sandwich, you are harmed. > > > > > > You can go right down the list using any product you want. > > > > > > Bundling is in fact inherently unfair to consumers and harmful to boot. > > > > > > Pick any product you want. > > > > > > -- > > > Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) > > > lmettler@LAMLaw.com > > > http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust > > > trial) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Am-info mailing list > > > Am-info@lists.essential.org > > > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Am-info mailing list > > Am-info@lists.essential.org > > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info > > -- > Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) > lmettler@LAMLaw.com > http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust > trial) > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info -- Christopher Pall Document Processing Inc. Systems Analyst/Programmer (800)526-2255 ext. 110 From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 18:48:43 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-1.tricreations.com [216.205.16.110]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3688E21B27 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:48:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.199]) by lamlaw.com ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:48:10 -0500 Message-ID: <385EC1C2.4235EA2@lamlaw.com> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 15:54:42 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] peanut butter and jelly sandwich References: <385EBB0E.BC8F236A@lamlaw.com> <385EBBD6.938FF00D@documentprocessing.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Christopher, Christopher Pall wrote: > > Lewis, the fact of the matter is that you can't tell customers what they > will or will not get with their operating systems. You still haven't proven > why bundling oranges with apples is any less harmfull than bundling Lynx > with Unix. You are correct. I can not tell you what you must buy with your OS. And neither can Microsoft Corporation without harming consumers, being unfair to consumers and possibly violating any number of laws. Again, pick any two products you want. Which ones you pick is not important. Your pick only alters the details of the explanation. With the OS and IE, the Bill Gates story applies. With apples and oranges, the story should be plain as day. No shopper I know wants to have to buy an orange in order to buy an apple, or vice versa. If they are sold separately, as they almost always are, then they are not bundled. Do understand the difference? I keep seeing posts suggesting that you can not understand how they differ. -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 19:04:43 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-1.tricreations.com [216.205.16.110]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5BAB021BAF for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 19:04:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.199]) by lamlaw.com ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 19:04:09 -0500 Message-ID: <385EC580.BB746CE3@lamlaw.com> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 16:10:40 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] peanut butter and jelly sandwich References: <385EBB0E.BC8F236A@lamlaw.com> <385EBBD6.938FF00D@documentprocessing.com> <385EBF47.C54A3D15@lamlaw.com> <385EBE85.E5EB3148@documentprocessing.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Christopher, Are those separate products? Do you have any marketing data to suggest they have separate demand by consumers? How many shells were distributed without the kernal? How many kernals without the shells? Does anyone offer a kernal for the shell? Does anyone offer an alternate shell for the kernal? All of these questions are important in order to decide where you named two products or not. Apples and oranges are clearly separate products, right? The GUI is a better example because Caldera is suing because the GUI and DOS are bundled. Are the GUI and DOS separate products? Well. We shall see in the Caldera case. If you conclude that the shell and kernal are different products then we can begin to measure the harm and unfairness involved in bundling them. Christopher Pall wrote: > > The OS shell (explorer.exe gui or command.com) and the OS. > > Fair bundle? > > Chris > > "Lewis A. Mettler" wrote: > > > Christopher, > > > > Bundling any two products is unfair to consumers and harmful. > > > > Pick any two you want. > > > > Christopher Pall wrote: > > > > > > Lewis, the fact of the matter is that you can't tell customers what they > > > will or will not get with their operating systems. You still haven't proven > > > why bundling oranges with apples is any less harmfull than bundling Lynx > > > with Unix. > > > > > > "Lewis A. Mettler" wrote: > > > > > > > >From a cure for cancer to a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, it does > > > > not matter what product is bundled with Windows. Read the bubblegum > > > > deal. You will either buy the gum or you will switch your OS or you > > > > will die in place. Same with the jawbreaker deal. It does not matter > > > > what the bundled product is. > > > > > > > > You like "peanut butter" as Bill Gates likes IE? Does not matter. > > > > > > > > You want to cure cancer? Does not matter. Consumers would be harmed if > > > > forced to buy treatment for a cancer cure as well as any other product. > > > > > > > > Microsoft claims that no one could possible be harmed by being forced to > > > > buy a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, right? That is their public > > > > cry, right? > > > > > > > > I have even seen posts on this list just as stupid. > > > > > > > > But, if you are allergic to peanuts, you can be harmed. > > > > > > > > If you are not hungry, you can be harmed. > > > > > > > > If you already have a peanut sandwich (like Bill Gates), you are > > > > likewise harmed. > > > > > > > > If you prefer a ham sandwich, you are harmed. > > > > > > > > You can go right down the list using any product you want. > > > > > > > > Bundling is in fact inherently unfair to consumers and harmful to boot. > > > > > > > > Pick any product you want. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) > > > > lmettler@LAMLaw.com > > > > http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust > > > > trial) > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Am-info mailing list > > > > Am-info@lists.essential.org > > > > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Am-info mailing list > > > Am-info@lists.essential.org > > > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info > > > > -- > > Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) > > lmettler@LAMLaw.com > > http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust > > trial) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Am-info mailing list > > Am-info@lists.essential.org > > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info > > -- > Christopher Pall > Document Processing Inc. > Systems Analyst/Programmer > (800)526-2255 ext. 110 > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 19:07:57 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-1.tricreations.com [216.205.16.110]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3175521BAF for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 19:07:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.199]) by lamlaw.com ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 19:07:24 -0500 Message-ID: <385EC644.14D65A6F@lamlaw.com> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 16:13:56 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems References: <199912192307.SAA09924@milan.essential.org> <99121918154103.07284@ehome.inhouse> <385DB702.943A834F@worldnet.att.net> <385EBCB3.4AD2C1D6@documentprocessing.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Christopher, Christopher Pall wrote: > > It's hard to argue with intentions. What are the intentions of any particular > product - that's what needs to be evalutated when monopolies are "integrating" > - are they attempting to grow a new business or destroy an existing one through > an established monopoly? Integration does not require bundling. Word, Excel and Access are integrated but not bundled. They are sold separately or together. Again, I note that no one seems to understand or understand the difference. One is harmful and unfair. The other is not. > > Sujal Shah wrote: > > > "Eric M. Bennett" wrote: > > [SNIP] > > > For this reason, I would argue that force-bundling by a monopolist is > > > often dangerous if there is still significant innovation going on in > > > a given product area, even if the monopolist's product is currently a > > > little better. Whether the possible economic benefits to the > > > consumer that might arise from bundling outweighs this danger is > > > something that would have to be examined case by case. > > > > Not to be annoying, but how would you define force-bundling? This also > > raises the question, to me at least, whether the implication of what > > you're saying is that a monopolist can never bundle *anything*, even if > > the combination would be beneficial for consumers. I'm not sure I'd go > > that far. > > > > It may be that a desired result of the current case would be some > > precendent for guidelines on how to evaluate the cases of monopolists > > bundling items. I also don't think that "significant innovation" is a > > sufficient criteria for determining whether a bundle harms consumers. > > Rather, I think in general monopolists should have a limited, but clear > > set of guidelines to follow. For example, they can't preclude a > > customer from replacing the bundled item, they need to offer a basic > > option w/o the bundled software, and there must be a price difference > > between the two packages, etc., etc., etc. > > > > I'll end my rambling now. :-) > > > > Sujal > > > > > > > > -- > > > Eric Bennett / ericb@pobox.com / emb22@cornell.edu www.pobox.com/~ericb/ > > > Cornell University, Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology > > > > > > I am not a vegetarian because I love animals; I am a vegetarian because > > > I hate plants. -- A. Whitney Brown > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Am-info mailing list > > > Am-info@lists.essential.org > > > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info > > > > -- > > ------ Sujal Shah ---- sujal@att.net > > > > http://www.sujal.net/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Am-info mailing list > > Am-info@lists.essential.org > > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info > > -- > Christopher Pall > Document Processing Inc. > Systems Analyst/Programmer > (800)526-2255 ext. 110 > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 19:56:15 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from relay20.smtp.psi.net (relay20.smtp.psi.net [38.8.20.2]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02D2C21B7D for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 19:56:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from [199.3.133.66] (helo=baron) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for am-info@lists.essential.org id 120Db3-00031g-00; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 19:56:14 -0500 Message-ID: <00d201bf4b4e$0a0e39e0$5b01f7a5@baron> From: "pap" To: "AM-INFO" Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 19:54:50 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems >Only Bayer can sell Bayer aspirins. But, Bayer can not set the price >for aspirins in the marketplace. There are many readily available >substitutes for Bayer aspirins. (By the way, "aspirin" used to be >trademark owned by Bayer.) >You must consider whether there are readily available substitutes for >products. That determination will help you decide whether a company can >bundle products and preclude competitors from the market. It also >decides whether they can control prices. Assume for a moment that Bayer had a copyright on the molecular structure of salicylic acid which they could change at will, which you had to license and could not reverse engineer. Would you enjoy parity into the aspirin business? Salicylic acid is open source. -pap From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 20:28:00 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from X3066.RESNET.CORNELL.EDU (X3066.RESNET.CORNELL.EDU [128.253.200.125]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDBEB21B27 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:27:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from [128.253.200.125] by X3066.RESNET.CORNELL.EDU with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 1.3.1); Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:27:50 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: ericb@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00d201bf4b4e$0a0e39e0$5b01f7a5@baron> References: <00d201bf4b4e$0a0e39e0$5b01f7a5@baron> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:27:40 -0500 To: am-info@lists.essential.org From: "Eric M. Bennett" Subject: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" pap@tiac.net wrote: > >Assume for a moment that Bayer had a copyright on the molecular structure of >salicylic acid which they could change at will, which you had to license and >could not reverse engineer. Would you enjoy parity into the aspirin >business? But how much of a market for "aspirin" is there? There is a market for painkillers; I don't think too many people care what is in the pill as long as it kills the pain. -- Eric Bennett / ericb@pobox.com / emb22@cornell.edu www.pobox.com/~ericb/ Cornell University, Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology I am not a vegetarian because I love animals; I am a vegetarian because I hate plants. -- A. Whitney Brown From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 21:30:24 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from vcnet.com (mail.vcnet.com [209.239.239.15]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 103AA21B38 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 21:30:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 36404 invoked from network); 21 Dec 1999 02:30:23 -0000 Received: from port120.dial.vcnet.com (HELO ?209.239.238.120?) (209.239.238.120) by mail.vcnet.com with SMTP; 21 Dec 1999 02:30:23 -0000 Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:30:23 -0800 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Mitch Stone Cc: "am-info" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-Id: <19991221023024.103AA21B38@venice.essential.org> --- From a message sent by Lewis A. Mettler on 12/20/99 3:17 PM --- >> Well okay, but be very careful about how you scale markets, because every >> company has a "monopoly" over the products they create -- perfectly legal >> and government-sanctioned monopolies called patents and copyrights. > >Patents and copyrights as well as trademarks do give companies certain >exclusive marketing capabilities, but they do not all equate to monopoly >power. They get much more than exclusive marketing capabilities -- patents and copyrights give them ownership of the intellectual property and grants them the authority to do with it as they wish. >Only Bayer can sell Bayer aspirins. But, Bayer can not set the price >for aspirins in the marketplace. There are many readily available >substitutes for Bayer aspirins. (By the way, "aspirin" used to be >trademark owned by Bayer.) An inappropriate example which only underscores the weakness of your point. Only Bayer can sell under the Bayer trade name, which they own, but the trade name is NOT the product. Bayer does not own the chemical formulation for aspirin, or even the trademark name aspirin. Anyone can manufacture and sell aspirin. OTOH, Merck owns the chemical formulation for Viagra and the trademark Viagra. Merck owns an exclusive right to sell Viagra, both in name and chemical formulation. For the term of the patent, Merck is the only company that can sell Viagra or any other drug which is chemically the same as Viagra. >You must consider whether there are readily available substitutes for >products. That determination will help you decide whether a company can >bundle products and preclude competitors from the market. It also >decides whether they can control prices. Merck may charge whatever the traffic will bear for Viagra, and certainly does, because they own it and there is no "ready substitute" for it -- or a great many other drugs for that matter. Without question, they control the price both in fact and in deed. By your own definition, then, Merck is a monopoly and must therefore be compelled to divest itself of Viagra and all of the other monopoly products they own. Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 21:39:54 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-1.tricreations.com [216.205.16.110]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5A67121B39 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 21:39:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.199]) by lamlaw.com ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 21:39:20 -0500 Message-ID: <385EE9E1.BABE7751@lamlaw.com> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:45:53 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems References: <19991221023024.103AA21B38@venice.essential.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mitch, Mitch Stone wrote: > > --- From a message sent by Lewis A. Mettler on 12/20/99 3:17 PM --- > > >> Well okay, but be very careful about how you scale markets, because every > >> company has a "monopoly" over the products they create -- perfectly legal > >> and government-sanctioned monopolies called patents and copyrights. > > > >Patents and copyrights as well as trademarks do give companies certain > >exclusive marketing capabilities, but they do not all equate to monopoly > >power. > > They get much more than exclusive marketing capabilities -- patents and > copyrights give them ownership of the intellectual property and grants > them the authority to do with it as they wish. False. Patents and copyrights only let them prevent others from doing some things. They are not grants of unlimited choice or use. Patented and copyrighted products can still violate antitrust laws. And, they can be precluded from the market if they violate almost any other law as well. It is flatly incorrect to suggest they can "do as they wish" with any product patented, copyrighted or not. > > >Only Bayer can sell Bayer aspirins. But, Bayer can not set the price > >for aspirins in the marketplace. There are many readily available > >substitutes for Bayer aspirins. (By the way, "aspirin" used to be > >trademark owned by Bayer.) > > An inappropriate example which only underscores the weakness of your > point. Only Bayer can sell under the Bayer trade name, which they own, > but the trade name is NOT the product. Bayer does not own the chemical > formulation for aspirin, or even the trademark name aspirin. At one time Bayer in fact did own the aspirin trademark. They lost it. > Anyone can > manufacture and sell aspirin. Now. Yes. And, someday Windows may no longer be a trademark held by Microsoft either. > OTOH, Merck owns the chemical formulation > for Viagra and the trademark Viagra. Merck owns an exclusive right to > sell Viagra, both in name and chemical formulation. For the term of the > patent, Merck is the only company that can sell Viagra or any other drug > which is chemically the same as Viagra. A trademark does not extend to the chemical formulation. Most generic drugs are chemically identical to the brand name but can not use the trademark. If you have a patented drug, then perhaps. Until the patent runs out, that is. > > >You must consider whether there are readily available substitutes for > >products. That determination will help you decide whether a company can > >bundle products and preclude competitors from the market. It also > >decides whether they can control prices. > > Merck may charge whatever the traffic will bear for Viagra, and certainly > does, because they own it and there is no "ready substitute" for it -- or > a great many other drugs for that matter. Without question, they control > the price both in fact and in deed. By your own definition, then, Merck > is a monopoly and must therefore be compelled to divest itself of Viagra > and all of the other monopoly products they own. No. But, if they bundle other products with viagra and use that power to preclude competition, they could violate antitrust laws. Having a monopoly is not a problem if you behave yourself. -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 22:00:59 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F5BF21B38 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 22:00:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from Magggie@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id i.0.4ce5f727 (3977); Mon, 20 Dec 1999 21:59:56 -0500 (EST) From: Magggie@aol.com Message-ID: <0.4ce5f727.2590472c@aol.com> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 21:59:56 EST To: pap@tiac.net, am-info@venice.essential.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45 Subject: [Am-info] STOP! Unsubscribe! Please STOP! Please stop cramming my mailbox with messages. I'm going away for a week and I want to save space for Messages that I value. From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 22:11:02 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from mail.rdc1.az.home.com (ha1.rdc1.az.home.com [24.1.240.66]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31AA621B39 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 22:11:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ehome.inhouse ([24.9.114.169]) by mail.rdc1.az.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <19991221031101.RODS2534.mail.rdc1.az.home.com@ehome.inhouse>; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 19:11:01 -0800 From: Eric Lee Green Organization: Myself @ Home To: "Lewis A. Mettler" Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 19:47:07 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Multiple recipients of list AM-INFO References: <199912192307.SAA09924@milan.essential.org> <385DB702.943A834F@worldnet.att.net> <385EB079.5C4C558F@lamlaw.com> In-Reply-To: <385EB079.5C4C558F@lamlaw.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <99122020133602.10200@ehome.inhouse> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Mon, 20 Dec 1999, Lewis A. Mettler wrote: > > Not to be annoying, but how would you define force-bundling? This also > > raises the question, to me at least, whether the implication of what > > you're saying is that a monopolist can never bundle *anything*, even if > > the combination would be beneficial for consumers. I'm not sure I'd go > > that far. > > Do you insist upon deciding for the consumer? A bundle prevents the > consumer from not buying the product. Or it results in additional value. Like bundling lemon juice, sugar, and water to make lemonade. Should I complain to the maker of the lemonade that I already have sugar and thus he is causing consumer harm? Don't be ridiculous! I'm not particularly interested in Microsoft's motives in bundling IE with Windows. I do believe that they bundled it in order to torpedo Netscape. But you know what? That doesn't matter! Rather, it is the question of consumer harm that matters. It is a question of whether the consumer benefits, overall, outweigh the costs of bundling (which, BTW, I have great objection to your assertation that it costs dollars to bundle IE with Windows -- as mentioned before, with a hand-picked team of programmers I could duplicate IE for under $4M, and given how many copies of Windows are sold per year, that's only a few cents per copy of Windows). The question of consumer benefits is an interesting one. What constitutes a consumer benefit? In this case, I believe it adds the additional value of being able to turn your computer on, click on the Internet Connection wizard, and be online without having to install or purchase any additional software. Given that over half of new computer buyers today say that they're buying their new computer to surf the Internet, that's a formidable additional value -- that could not exist if Microsoft or OEM's were not allowed to bundle a browser with their package. In addition, for Windows 98, using the browser as the primary UI helps provide a more coherent user experience for these people buying the computer in order to browse the Internet. My biggest complaint here is that Microsoft went beyond simple bundling, and actively took steps to prevent people from using Netscape. First, they deliberately broke the Winsock API with Windows 95 so that the version of Netscape for Windows 3.1 would not run under Windows 95. This tactic of shifting API's was also used against Lotus and Novell/WordPerfect in order to stall sales of their respective office suites, BTW (because these competitors did not have early access to the Win32 API's, Microsoft had a 100% monopoly of 32-bit office suites for Windows 95 for almost six months -- and made good use of that head start to wallop Lotus and Novell/Corel in the market place). Next, they put terms into their OEM licenses which prevented OEMs from bundling Netscape on an equal basis with IE (the famous "first screen" requirement). Then they actively paid various ISP's to bundle IE instead of Netscape on their ISP "startup kits" -- and if they wanted to have dual "startup kits", one for IE and one for Netscape, nope, sorry, uh-uh. And finally, AOL was bribed with a lucrative position on the Windows 95 desktop in exchange for choosing IE rather than Netscape. All of these acts were clearly anti-competitive in nature -- and all are business practices, NOT a matter of product packaging. My belief is that for the time period in question, 1995-1997, Netscape Communicator provided clear value over that provided by Internet Explorer that would have kept Netscape's cash flow quite flush -- if not for those anti-competitive acts. Netscape provided a coherent EMAIL/USENET/Web environment that even today Microsoft has not fully duplicated. But they were deprived of the opportunity to capitalize on that superior product due to Microsoft's business practices -- *NOT* because of bundling in and of itself. > Can you think of any product that so good and so beneficial that all > consumers should be forced to buy it? Lewis, we were talking about bundling, not force. Do you deny that bundling lemon juice, sugar, and water to create lemonade provides additional value over selling the ingredients seperately? Should I as the proprietor of the lemonade stand be forced to sell you the lemon juice and water seperately just because you already have sugar? -- Eric Lee Green e_l_green@hotmail.com http://members.tripod.com/e_l_green/ From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 22:18:12 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from mail.rdc1.az.home.com (ha1.rdc1.az.home.com [24.1.240.66]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 708C821BBA for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 22:18:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ehome.inhouse ([24.9.114.169]) by mail.rdc1.az.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <19991221031812.RPUD2534.mail.rdc1.az.home.com@ehome.inhouse>; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 19:18:12 -0800 From: Eric Lee Green Organization: Myself @ Home To: chrisbp@documentprocessing.com, Christopher Pall , aminfo Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:16:34 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <199912192307.SAA09924@milan.essential.org> <385DB702.943A834F@worldnet.att.net> <385EBCB3.4AD2C1D6@documentprocessing.com> In-Reply-To: <385EBCB3.4AD2C1D6@documentprocessing.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <99122020204703.10200@ehome.inhouse> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Mon, 20 Dec 1999, Christopher Pall wrote: > It's hard to argue with intentions. What are the intentions of any particular > product - that's what needs to be evaluated when monopolies are "integrating" > - are they attempting to grow a new business or destroy an existing one through > an established monopoly? Intentions are not the issue. Consumer harm is the issue. For example, Bill Gates donates millions of dollars to charities in a callous attempt to buy support amongst consumers as a "charitable person". But should this action be prohibited simply because his intentions are not good? I suspect the charities that are the recipient of his largesse would strongly disagree, pointing to the good that has resulted from the action -- regardless of its motivations. -- Eric Lee Green e_l_green@hotmail.com http://members.tripod.com/e_l_green/ From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 22:22:20 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from mail.rdc1.az.home.com (ha1.rdc1.az.home.com [24.1.240.66]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBA1F21BBA for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 22:22:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ehome.inhouse ([24.9.114.169]) by mail.rdc1.az.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <19991221032219.RQSB2534.mail.rdc1.az.home.com@ehome.inhouse>; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 19:22:19 -0800 From: Eric Lee Green Organization: Myself @ Home To: "Eric M. Bennett" , am-info@venice.essential.org Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:21:53 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <00d201bf4b4e$0a0e39e0$5b01f7a5@baron> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <99122020245404.10200@ehome.inhouse> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Mon, 20 Dec 1999, Eric M. Bennett wrote: > But how much of a market for "aspirin" is there? There is a market > for painkillers; I don't think too many people care what is in the > pill as long as it kills the pain. I have allergies (you can tell from my puffy eyes that they're bothering me at the moment :-( ). Every available allergy medicine that does not cause drowsiness is patented and can be sold by its creator and by no others -- and is sold for almost the exact same price, in a clear case of collusion amongst drug companies that, strangely enough, seems to be going totally unpunished. That price, BTW, is approximately $80 per month, regardless of which medicine we're talking about. "choice" does not necessarily mean competition. -- Eric Lee Green e_l_green@hotmail.com http://members.tripod.com/e_l_green/ From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 22:50:51 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from vcnet.com (mail.vcnet.com [209.239.239.15]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 72B5221B1A for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 22:50:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 64244 invoked from network); 21 Dec 1999 03:50:49 -0000 Received: from port114.dial.vcnet.com (HELO ?209.239.238.114?) (209.239.238.114) by mail.vcnet.com with SMTP; 21 Dec 1999 03:50:49 -0000 Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 19:50:49 -0800 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Mitch Stone To: "am-info" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-Id: <19991221035050.72B5221B1A@venice.essential.org> --- From a message sent by Eric M. Bennett on 12/20/99 5:27 PM --- >pap@tiac.net wrote: > >> >>Assume for a moment that Bayer had a copyright on the molecular structure of >>salicylic acid which they could change at will, which you had to license and >>could not reverse engineer. Would you enjoy parity into the aspirin >>business? > > >But how much of a market for "aspirin" is there? There is a market >for painkillers; I don't think too many people care what is in the >pill as long as it kills the pain. Oh, now Eric. Really. Of course some people care -- if they didn't care, we would have only aspirin or some other ultra-cheap paim pills for sale, instead of a wide variety over-the-counter and prescription painkillers. Myself, I don't take aspirin -- only ibuprofen. Works better and doesn't give me heartburn (like some other things I could mention). Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 23:02:26 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-2.tricreations.com [216.205.16.111]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 11DCF21BBA for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 23:02:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.140]) by lamlaw.com ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 23:02:00 -0500 Message-ID: <385EFD38.A60A4ACA@lamlaw.com> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:08:24 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Multiple recipients of list AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems References: <199912192307.SAA09924@milan.essential.org> <385DB702.943A834F@worldnet.att.net> <385EB079.5C4C558F@lamlaw.com> <99122020133602.10200@ehome.inhouse> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Eric, All lemons are not sold with sugar and water added. All sugar is not sold with lemons. You continue to refuse to acknowledge the obvious. Eric Lee Green wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Dec 1999, Lewis A. Mettler wrote: > > > Not to be annoying, but how would you define force-bundling? This also > > > raises the question, to me at least, whether the implication of what > > > you're saying is that a monopolist can never bundle *anything*, even if > > > the combination would be beneficial for consumers. I'm not sure I'd go > > > that far. > > > > Do you insist upon deciding for the consumer? A bundle prevents the > > consumer from not buying the product. > > Or it results in additional value. Like bundling lemon juice, sugar, and water > to make lemonade. Should I complain to the maker of the lemonade that I already > have sugar and thus he is causing consumer harm? Don't be ridiculous! > > I'm not particularly interested in Microsoft's motives in bundling IE with > Windows. I do believe that they bundled it in order to torpedo Netscape. But > you know what? That doesn't matter! Rather, it is the question of consumer harm > that matters. It is a question of whether the consumer benefits, overall, > outweigh the costs of bundling (which, BTW, I have great objection to your > assertation that it costs dollars to bundle IE with Windows -- as mentioned > before, with a hand-picked team of programmers I could duplicate IE for under > $4M, and given how many copies of Windows are sold per year, that's only a few > cents per copy of Windows). > > The question of consumer benefits is an interesting one. What constitutes a > consumer benefit? In this case, I believe it adds the additional value of being > able to turn your computer on, click on the Internet Connection wizard, and be > online without having to install or purchase any additional software. Given > that over half of new computer buyers today say that they're buying their new > computer to surf the Internet, that's a formidable additional value -- that > could not exist if Microsoft or OEM's were not allowed to bundle a browser > with their package. In addition, for Windows 98, using the browser as the > primary UI helps provide a more coherent user experience for these people > buying the computer in order to browse the Internet. > > My biggest complaint here is that Microsoft went beyond simple bundling, and > actively took steps to prevent people from using Netscape. First, they > deliberately broke the Winsock API with Windows 95 so that the version of > Netscape for Windows 3.1 would not run under Windows 95. This tactic of > shifting API's was also used against Lotus and Novell/WordPerfect in order to > stall sales of their respective office suites, BTW (because these competitors > did not have early access to the Win32 API's, Microsoft had a 100% monopoly of > 32-bit office suites for Windows 95 for almost six months -- and made good use > of that head start to wallop Lotus and Novell/Corel in the market place). Next, > they put terms into their OEM licenses which prevented OEMs from bundling > Netscape on an equal basis with IE (the famous "first screen" requirement). Then > they actively paid various ISP's to bundle IE instead of Netscape on their ISP > "startup kits" -- and if they wanted to have dual "startup kits", one for IE > and one for Netscape, nope, sorry, uh-uh. And finally, AOL was bribed with a > lucrative position on the Windows 95 desktop in exchange for choosing IE rather > than Netscape. All of these acts were clearly anti-competitive in nature -- and > all are business practices, NOT a matter of product packaging. > > My belief is that for the time period in question, 1995-1997, Netscape > Communicator provided clear value over that provided by Internet Explorer that > would have kept Netscape's cash flow quite flush -- if not for those > anti-competitive acts. Netscape provided a coherent EMAIL/USENET/Web > environment that even today Microsoft has not fully duplicated. But they were > deprived of the opportunity to capitalize on that superior product due to > Microsoft's business practices -- *NOT* because of bundling in and of itself. > > > Can you think of any product that so good and so beneficial that all > > consumers should be forced to buy it? > > Lewis, we were talking about bundling, not force. Do you deny that bundling > lemon juice, sugar, and water to create lemonade provides additional value over > selling the ingredients seperately? Should I as the proprietor of the lemonade > stand be forced to sell you the lemon juice and water seperately just because > you already have sugar? > > -- > Eric Lee Green e_l_green@hotmail.com > http://members.tripod.com/e_l_green/ -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 23:04:12 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-2.tricreations.com [216.205.16.111]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 22FD121C33 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 23:04:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.140]) by lamlaw.com ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 23:03:46 -0500 Message-ID: <385EFDA2.F82EF97B@lamlaw.com> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:10:10 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems References: <00d201bf4b4e$0a0e39e0$5b01f7a5@baron> <99122020245404.10200@ehome.inhouse> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Eric, But the lack of competition does mean no choice. Eric Lee Green wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Dec 1999, Eric M. Bennett wrote: > > But how much of a market for "aspirin" is there? There is a market > > for painkillers; I don't think too many people care what is in the > > pill as long as it kills the pain. > > I have allergies (you can tell from my puffy eyes that they're bothering me at > the moment :-( ). Every available allergy medicine that does not cause > drowsiness is patented and can be sold by its creator and by no others -- and > is sold for almost the exact same price, in a clear case of collusion amongst > drug companies that, strangely enough, seems to be going totally unpunished. > That price, BTW, is approximately $80 per month, regardless of which medicine > we're talking about. > > "choice" does not necessarily mean competition. > > -- > Eric Lee Green e_l_green@hotmail.com > http://members.tripod.com/e_l_green/ > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 00:10:45 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from relay20.smtp.psi.net (relay20.smtp.psi.net [38.8.20.2]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B05A821C33 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 00:10:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from [199.3.133.66] (helo=baron) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) for am-info@lists.essential.org id 120HZN-0007kJ-00; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 00:10:45 -0500 Message-ID: <014501bf4b71$997da840$5b01f7a5@baron> From: "pap" To: "AM-INFO" Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 00:09:39 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: [Am-info] There is no cure: was Re: Bundling and operating systems Afaik, an aspirin a day is recommended for a lot of folks where Tylenol won't cut it. Beside that, what don't you like, the analogy or the example? -pap > > Eric Bennett said; > > pap@tiac.net wrote: > > > > >>Assume for a moment that Bayer had a copyright on the molecular structure > of > >>salicylic acid which they could change at will, which you had to license > and > >>could not reverse engineer. Would you enjoy parity into the aspirin > >>business? > > > >But how much of a market for "aspirin" is there? There is a market > >for painkillers; I don't think too many people care what is in the > >pill as long as it kills the pain. > > -- > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > ---- > > > Previous message: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems > > From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 01:48:01 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from vcnet.com (mail.vcnet.com [209.239.239.15]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6F61721C33 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 01:48:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 23349 invoked from network); 21 Dec 1999 06:48:00 -0000 Received: from port80.dial.vcnet.com (HELO ?209.239.238.80?) (209.239.238.80) by mail.vcnet.com with SMTP; 21 Dec 1999 06:48:00 -0000 Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 22:48:00 -0800 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Mitch Stone Cc: "AM-INFO" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-Id: <19991221064801.6F61721C33@venice.essential.org> --- From a message sent by Lewis A. Mettler on 12/20/99 6:45 PM --- >> They get much more than exclusive marketing capabilities -- patents and >> copyrights give them ownership of the intellectual property and grants >> them the authority to do with it as they wish. > >False. Patents and copyrights only let them prevent others from doing >some things. They are not grants of unlimited choice or use. > >Patented and copyrighted products can still violate antitrust laws. >And, they can be precluded from the market if they violate almost any >other law as well. > >It is flatly incorrect to suggest they can "do as they wish" with any >product patented, copyrighted or not. A distinction without a difference. Patents and copyrights protect intellectual property from theft. Intellectual property would be worthless without these protections. >> An inappropriate example which only underscores the weakness of your >> point. Only Bayer can sell under the Bayer trade name, which they own, >> but the trade name is NOT the product. Bayer does not own the chemical >> formulation for aspirin, or even the trademark name aspirin. > >At one time Bayer in fact did own the aspirin trademark. They lost it. Irrelevant. >> Anyone can >> manufacture and sell aspirin. > >Now. Yes. Trademarks are not relevant. Trademarks are not products. >And, someday Windows may no longer be a trademark held by Microsoft >either. Irrelevant. Trademarks are not products. >> OTOH, Merck owns the chemical formulation >> for Viagra and the trademark Viagra. Merck owns an exclusive right to >> sell Viagra, both in name and chemical formulation. For the term of the >> patent, Merck is the only company that can sell Viagra or any other drug >> which is chemically the same as Viagra. > >A trademark does not extend to the chemical formulation. Most generic >drugs are chemically identical to the brand name but can not use the >trademark. If you have a patented drug, then perhaps. Until the patent >runs out, that is. Irrelevant. Trademarks are not products. Patents and copyrights might be products. Generic drugs are, by definition, not protected by patents. >> Merck may charge whatever the traffic will bear for Viagra, and certainly >> does, because they own it and there is no "ready substitute" for it -- or >> a great many other drugs for that matter. Without question, they control >> the price both in fact and in deed. By your own definition, then, Merck >> is a monopoly and must therefore be compelled to divest itself of Viagra >> and all of the other monopoly products they own. > >No. But, if they bundle other products with viagra and use that power >to preclude competition, they could violate antitrust laws. Bundling is irrelevant. Merck does preclude competition without bundling anything -- they don't allow anyone else to manufacture and sell Viagra, which enables them to charge a monopoly price for the drug. Which they do. >Having a monopoly is not a problem if you behave yourself. Then you agree that patents and copyrights create de facto monopolies. Thanks you -- you've tried to avoid admitting this for months, but now you have. You may stop arguing now. Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 02:27:11 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from X3066.RESNET.CORNELL.EDU (X3066.RESNET.CORNELL.EDU [128.253.200.125]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F3A121C33 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 02:26:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from [128.253.200.125] by X3066.RESNET.CORNELL.EDU with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 1.3.1); Tue, 21 Dec 1999 02:21:40 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: ericb@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19991221035050.72B5221B1A@venice.essential.org> References: <19991221035050.72B5221B1A@venice.essential.org> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 02:21:22 -0500 To: am-info@lists.essential.org From: "Eric M. Bennett" Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Mitch Stone wrote: > >But how much of a market for "aspirin" is there? There is a market > >for painkillers; I don't think too many people care what is in the > >pill as long as it kills the pain. > >Oh, now Eric. Really. Of course some people care -- if they didn't care, >we would have only aspirin or some other ultra-cheap paim pills for sale, >instead of a wide variety over-the-counter and prescription painkillers. >Myself, I don't take aspirin -- only ibuprofen. Works better and doesn't >give me heartburn (like some other things I could mention). Doesn't that prove the point? You care about the effect the pill has when you ingest it, not the chemical structure of the active ingredient. When somebody comes out with something that kills pain for you better than aspirin, you don't say, "Oh, I can't buy that, it's not aspirin; I'm only in the market for aspirin". And it doesn't matter if there are a few people who do specifically want aspirin for some reason (maybe they like getting heartburn for some odd reason). As long as *most aspirin users* are more interested in what kills pain, then any hypothetical aspirin monopolist would have its aspirin prices kept in check by the threat of *most* of its users switching to sodium naproxen or some other painkiller. -- Eric Bennett / ericb@pobox.com / emb22@cornell.edu www.pobox.com/~ericb/ Cornell University, Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology I am not a vegetarian because I love animals; I am a vegetarian because I hate plants. -- A. Whitney Brown From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 06:01:38 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from dfw-smtpout3.email.verio.net (dfw-smtpout3-ext.email.verio.net [129.250.36.43]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8187221B4B for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 06:01:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from [129.250.38.94] (helo=dfw-mailtemp.techops.verio.net) by dfw-smtpout3.email.verio.net with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #7) id 120N2w-00031n-00 for am-info@lists.essential.org; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 11:01:38 +0000 Received: from [168.143.12.237] (helo=normanmo) by dfw-mailtemp.techops.verio.net with smtp (Exim 3.12 #6) id 120N2z-00024D-00 for am-info@lists.essential.org; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 11:01:42 +0000 From: "Norm" To: "am-info" Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 06:01:30 -0500 (EST) Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 2.10.1999 for OS/2 Warp 4.00 In-Reply-To: <199912181705.MAA26453@milan.essential.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Subject: [Am-info] Re: Corel Lawsuit Challenges U.S. Government Contract On Sat, 18 Dec 1999 12:47:20 -0500 (EST), Mitch Stone wrote: >I recently received a Request for Proposal from a California state agency >specifically stipulating that all of the contractor's work be prepared >and presented in Microsoft Word for Windows -- not even Word for the >Macintosh (assuming we owned that) is allowed, apparently. So I guess we >won't be proposing. We see this in federal contract specifications as >well. Was this in response to something you were planning to submit?? If so you might want to lodge a formal complaint. Although I seriously doubt it will change anything, at least it might bring the issue to their attention. -- ...Cheers, ...Norm *********************************************** * Brought to you by OS/2 Warp v4.0 and PMMail * * For a copy of my PGP key send me a message * * with "send pub_key" in the subject * *********************************************** From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 07:26:31 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from denali.atlnet.com (denali.atlnet.com [208.148.155.187]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41A5621B4B for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 07:26:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from denali.atlnet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by denali (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA30263 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 07:17:27 -0500 Sender: esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Message-ID: <385F6FD6.A712219D@denali.atlnet.com> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 07:17:26 -0500 From: Wandered Inn Organization: Nocturnal Aviation Software Design X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.10 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: am-info References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Am-info] Microsoft and Simon Caught on the news last night that Microsoft and Simon (the largest player in the Mall business) have signed an agreement where Simon will be selling Microsoft Internet access. They keep growing. Here in the Atlanta, GA area, at least 2/3 of the malls are Simon managed. They fear no one. (Microsoft) -- Until later: Geoffrey esoteric@denali.atlnet.com It should be illegal to yell "Y2K" in a crowded economy. -- Larry Wall, creator of the programming language Perl From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 08:12:08 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from dot.netrex.net (dot.netrex.net [206.253.225.51]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDBFC21B4B for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 08:12:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from documentprocessing.com ([207.231.143.130]) by dot.netrex.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA08689 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 08:12:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <385F7C81.8B058402@documentprocessing.com> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 08:11:29 -0500 From: Christopher Pall Reply-To: chrisbp@documentprocessing.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: aminfo Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems References: <199912192307.SAA09924@milan.essential.org> <385DB702.943A834F@worldnet.att.net> <385EBCB3.4AD2C1D6@documentprocessing.com> <99122020204703.10200@ehome.inhouse> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, it's only your opinion that it's a an attempt to buy public support. Furthermore - doing something unethical is hardly an anti-trust case waiting to happen. Eric Lee Green wrote: > On Mon, 20 Dec 1999, Christopher Pall wrote: > > It's hard to argue with intentions. What are the intentions of any particular > > product - that's what needs to be evaluated when monopolies are "integrating" > > - are they attempting to grow a new business or destroy an existing one through > > an established monopoly? > > Intentions are not the issue. Consumer harm is the issue. For example, Bill > Gates donates millions of dollars to charities in a callous attempt to buy > support amongst consumers as a "charitable person". But should this action be > prohibited simply because his intentions are not good? I suspect the charities > that are the recipient of his largesse would strongly disagree, pointing to the > good that has resulted from the action -- regardless of its motivations. > > -- > Eric Lee Green e_l_green@hotmail.com > http://members.tripod.com/e_l_green/ -- Christopher Pall Document Processing Inc. Systems Analyst/Programmer (800)526-2255 ext. 110 From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 08:30:32 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from heimdall.sdrc.com (heimdall.sdrc.com [146.122.132.195]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07D1221BBE for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 08:30:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailhub-cvg.sdrc.com (mailhub-cvg.sdrc.com [146.122.142.31]) by heimdall.sdrc.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA13316 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 08:30:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from rios85.sdrc.com (rios85 [146.122.6.127]) by mailhub-cvg.sdrc.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA12239 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 08:30:30 -0500 (EST) Received: by rios85.sdrc.com id IAA14570; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 08:30:29 -0500 Sender: joe.moore@sdrc.com Message-ID: <385F80F5.150EB71A@sdrc.com> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 08:30:29 -0500 From: Joe Moore Organization: No, but I can still find what I'm looking for. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51i [en_US] (X11; U; AIX 4.3) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] Bill Gates was indeed harmed financially References: <19991220170045.C71D521B1A@venice.essential.org> <385E6926.D18C19E9@lamlaw.com> <385E78C0.812F5B1E@documentprocessing.com> <385E7EE7.4C9429C1@lamlaw.com> <385E84D1.3B4E5FFF@documentprocessing.com> <385E8AE0.5E34D7AA@lamlaw.com> <385EA404.1B134332@documentprocessing.com> <385EAC8D.1A04E91@lamlaw.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Lewis A. Mettler" wrote: (snip) > Suites are okay provided that the products are available separately. > Why is it that no one on this list acknowledges the difference between a > forced bundle and a suite? (much snippage) > Separate products should be sold separately. Otherwise, it is a bundle > and is therefore unfair and harmful. > > Again, office suites do not cause this harm since most products > contained therein can be purchased separately. > > I find it interesting that all those who refuse to acknowledge harm by > bundling also refuse to acknowledge the difference between a suite of > products also available separately and bundles where that is not the > case. Bundles cause harm that suites do not. Perhaps because there is no clear line. Since Word and Excel are sold separately, Office is a suite, so there is no harm there. But since Word and Excel both contain a spellchecker, they are both bundles, and so all consumers are harmed. Hmm... Can you give us an example of a suite? --Joe -- IBM's vision is apparently to make IBM hardware "scream with Microsoft software" --The Register, http://www.theregister.co.uk/990927-000003.html I have visions of screaming with (at and about) Microsoft software, too. From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 09:13:07 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from omnifarious.mn.org (ehopper-host105.dsl.visi.com [209.98.248.105]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 91AEF21B4B for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:13:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 14306 invoked by uid 310); 21 Dec 1999 14:13:05 -0000 Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 08:13:05 -0600 From: "Eric M. Hopper" To: Mitch Stone Cc: AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems Message-ID: <19991221081305.B14256@omnifarious.mn.org> References: <19991221064801.6F61721C33@venice.essential.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3i In-Reply-To: <19991221064801.6F61721C33@venice.essential.org> On Mon, Dec 20, 1999 at 10:48:00PM -0800, Mitch Stone wrote: >> >> It is flatly incorrect to suggest they can "do as they wish" with >> any product patented, copyrighted or not. > > A distinction without a difference. Patents and copyrights protect > intellectual property from theft. Intellectual property would be > worthless without these protections. I object to both your use of the phrase 'intellectual property', the word 'theft', and your stipulation that ideas are worthless if everyone can use them. Bayer still makes lots of money off of aspirin, despite the fact that any conceivable patent expired many years ago. In fact, from a legal sense, patents can't be stolen. There is no criminal code governing patents. Copywritten work can sort of be stolen. There is at least a criminal code governing it. I do think it was a pretty bad legislative decision to create that code though. It should've remained a purely civil matter. > Trademarks are not relevant. Trademarks are not products. Try telling that to a marketing person. Many companies hold onto trademarks as being one of the most precious things they own. >> Having a monopoly is not a problem if you behave yourself. > > Then you agree that patents and copyrights create de facto monopolies. > Thanks you -- you've tried to avoid admitting this for months, but now > you have. You may stop arguing now. *laugh* Have fun (if at all possible), -- Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God. Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul. ---Mark Twain -- Eric Hopper (hopper@omnifarious.mn.org http://omnifarious.mn.org/~hopper) -- From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 20:25:36 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from mail0.mailsender.net (mail0.mailsender.net [209.132.1.30]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1549C21B27 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:25:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from [209.214.41.217] (209.214.41.217) by mail0.mailsender.net; 20 Dec 1999 17:18:41 -0800 Message-ID: <385ed5723863d21c@mail0.mailsender.net> (added by mail0.mailsender.net) Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:25:36 -0500 x-sender: mail%msbc.simplenet.com@mail.msbc.simplenet.com x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Paul Rickard To: "Sujal Shah" , "Multiple recipients of list AM-INFO" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: mail%msbc.simplenet.com@mail.msbc.simplenet.com sujal@worldnet.att.net >> For this reason, I would argue that force-bundling by a monopolist is >> often dangerous if there is still significant innovation going on in >> a given product area, even if the monopolist's product is currently a >> little better. Whether the possible economic benefits to the >> consumer that might arise from bundling outweighs this danger is >> something that would have to be examined case by case. > >Not to be annoying, but how would you define force-bundling? I'd describe it less as 'forced' than just 'unreversible'. The main difference between bundled Windows browsers and Linux bowsers (beyond the monopoly market share) is that Linux browser can be removed or replaced while Windows cannot be separated from the browser that comes with it. ======== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ======= --------------------------------[ Http://www.msboycott.com ]----------- From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 20:36:38 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from mail0.mailsender.net (mail0.mailsender.net [209.132.1.30]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10C3821B7D for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:36:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from [209.214.41.217] (209.214.41.217) by mail0.mailsender.net; 20 Dec 1999 17:29:43 -0800 Message-ID: <385ed8083863d8cb@mail0.mailsender.net> (added by mail0.mailsender.net) Subject: Re: [Am-info] RE: Bizarre: MS sends wrong box out, starts criminal investigatio n Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:36:37 -0500 x-sender: mail%msbc.simplenet.com@mail.msbc.simplenet.com x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Paul Rickard To: "Am Info Recipients" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: mail%msbc.simplenet.com@mail.msbc.simplenet.com Roland.Bockhorst@scott.af.mil >> >According to police, someone with access to the mail room at >> >Microsoft's WebTV facility in Mountain View changed the address label >> >on the WebTV box last week and rerouted it from Redmond, Wash., to >> >New York City. The article says it was shipped via UPS.. You can't just sneak in and change a UPS shipping label. The label has to be printed from either an authorized shipping location, like some local grocery stores, or by a company with an account, like Microsoft. If the damn thing was in Microsoft's mail room, UPS would only ship it with a label generated by the company. There are ways to tell who printed the label. I know people that work for UPS, I know how this stuff works. Sounds like the original poster was correct - somebody in Microsoft's mail room stuck the wrong label on it, like one that was supposed to be on the regular WebTV box got on the prototype and vice versa, and then they lied and wasted taxpayer money to get the crap back. ======== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ======= --------------------------------[ Http://www.msboycott.com ]----------- From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 20:38:34 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from X3066.RESNET.CORNELL.EDU (X3066.RESNET.CORNELL.EDU [128.253.200.125]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8209E21B27 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:38:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (128.253.86.74) by X3066.RESNET.CORNELL.EDU with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 1.3.1); Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:38:04 -0500 Sender: emb22@X3066.RESNET.CORNELL.EDU Message-ID: <385ED9DB.C2971A73@pobox.com> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:37:31 -0500 From: Eric Bennett Reply-To: ericb@pobox.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; OSF1 V4.0 alpha) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: am-info@lists.essential.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems Sujal Shah wrote: > > "Eric M. Bennett" wrote: > [SNIP] > > For this reason, I would argue that force-bundling by a monopolist is > > often dangerous if there is still significant innovation going on in > > a given product area, even if the monopolist's product is currently a > > little better. Whether the possible economic benefits to the > > consumer that might arise from bundling outweighs this danger is > > something that would have to be examined case by case. > > Not to be annoying, but how would you define force-bundling? If the one of the items is only availabe in the bundle and not separately, then anyone who wants this item has to buy the bundle to get it. That is a force bundle. If the items are all available separately it's not a force bundle... unless perhaps price of each individual item on its own is greater than the cost of the bundle itself. > This also > raises the question, to me at least, whether the implication of what > you're saying is that a monopolist can never bundle *anything*, even if > the combination would be beneficial for consumers. I'm not sure I'd go > that far. No, I'm not saying that. Note the statement above: "Whether the possible economic benefits to the consumer that might arise from bundling outweighs this danger is something that would have to be examined case by case." If almost everybody wants the bundle, the monopolist may be able to make an efficiency argument to justify not offering a separate product. If consumers overall are paying less due to the force-bundling than they would pay where the products are offered separately, then it's likely the monopolist's actions are okay. My point is to focus on the tradeoffs. Lewis seems to focus exclusively on the likely dangers of force-bundling, but force-bundling can also have benefits, and both need to be considered. As I pointed out before, when you have 30 options and you force a company to sell all possible combinations of those items, you've gone to the point where there are many combinations that nobody will want, and some that only one person will want. In many cases it is not cost-effective to offer all of them. Choices that *many* people are interested in--browser vs. no browser, for example--will still be offered. But others, like floppy driver vs. no floppy driver--will not. > It may be that a desired result of the current case would be some > precendent for guidelines on how to evaluate the cases of monopolists > bundling items. I also don't think that "significant innovation" is a > sufficient criteria for determining whether a bundle harms consumers. > Rather, I think in general monopolists should have a limited, but clear > set of guidelines to follow. Separation of demand ought to work fine. If there is significant demand for separated products and the monopolist does not provide them, the monopolist is harming consumers. If, on the other hand, 99% of customers were demanding that Windows come with IE, it would likely be dangerous to punish Microsoft for force-bundling. That leaves us to argue over "significant demand", but we can probably agree that when about 50% of computer buyers say they don't want IE, that is significant demand. For much of its history Microsoft has designed OSes for markets that are smaller than half of today's market. I would suggest for a starting point that if consumers will save money overall by having the products separated, then that should demonstrate significant demand. -- Eric Bennett ( ericb@pobox.com ; http://www.pobox.com/~ericb ) Field of Biochemistry, Cornell University I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "ask". - Bill Gates, in his deposition in US v. Microsoft From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 20:47:25 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from mail0.mailsender.net (mail0.mailsender.net [209.132.1.30]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DB0021B27 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:47:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from [209.214.41.217] (209.214.41.217) by mail0.mailsender.net; 20 Dec 1999 17:40:31 -0800 Message-ID: <385eda903863e058@mail0.mailsender.net> (added by mail0.mailsender.net) Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: a coherent whole Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:47:25 -0500 x-sender: mail%msbc.simplenet.com@mail.msbc.simplenet.com x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Paul Rickard To: "Am-Info" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: mail%msbc.simplenet.com@mail.msbc.simplenet.com mstone@vc.net >--- From a message sent by Paul Rickard on 12/19/99 8:56 PM --- > >>mstone@vc.net >> >>>I'd take this a bit further with the observation that Microsoft's >>>integration of IE into Win 98 represents a pretty stark admission that >>>they'd failed miserably in all of their previous efforts at creating a >>>coherent user experience. Slapping a browser on the front-end of Windows >>>was, from a user interface standpoint, a pretty desperate attempt to >>>create coherence where little existed. And from my admittedly biased >>>point of view, the Windows UI is still a pretty horrible muddle. For >>>exhibits A...Z, I offer you the Windows Annoyances web site. >> >> "Microsoft is going to argue that since most users are now familiar with >> the way a Web browser works, the browser will be an easier interface >>for >> novices to use in finding stuff on their own computers. And that might >>be >> true. But if it is true, it's an admission of awful truth for >>Microsoft: >> It's saying, 'After all these years and versions of Windows we still >> haven't figured out how to make personal computing easy enough for an >> intelligent person to learn easily.'" -Scott Rosenberg, Salon.com > >So your point is...? > >Mitch Stone >mstone@vc.net Just backing your original point. I totally agree - bundling the browser as a user interface is an admission that the touted Windows UI isn't all it's cracked up to be. ======== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ======= --------------------------------[ Http://www.msboycott.com ]----------- From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 05:01:04 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from Kitten.mcs.net (Kitten.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1486521BC8 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 05:01:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from mcs.com (IDENT:root@stevecoh.pr.mcs.net [204.95.62.224]) by Kitten.mcs.net (8.9.3/8.8.2) with ESMTP id EAA81413; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 04:01:02 -0600 (CST) Sender: root@Kitten.mcs.net Message-ID: <385F4F80.DCD5063E@mcs.com> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 03:59:28 -0600 From: Steve Cohen X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Eric M. Bennett" Cc: am-info@venice.essential.org Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems References: <00d201bf4b4e$0a0e39e0$5b01f7a5@baron> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Eric M. Bennett" wrote: > > pap@tiac.net wrote: > > > > >Assume for a moment that Bayer had a copyright on the molecular structure of > >salicylic acid which they could change at will, which you had to license and > >could not reverse engineer. Would you enjoy parity into the aspirin > >business? > > But how much of a market for "aspirin" is there? There is a market > for painkillers; I don't think too many people care what is in the > pill as long as it kills the pain. > > Wrong there. Lots of folk can't abide aspirin but can take acetominophen. Or can't handle ibuprofen which is hard on their stomachs. From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 08:45:18 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from Kitten.mcs.net (Kitten.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA1A321C2F for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 08:45:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from mcs.com (IDENT:scohen@stevecoh.pr.mcs.net [204.95.62.224]) by Kitten.mcs.net (8.9.3/8.8.2) with ESMTP id HAA99680; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 07:45:15 -0600 (CST) Sender: scohen@Mcs.Net Message-ID: <385F8408.9D2CE452@mcs.com> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 07:43:36 -0600 From: Steve Cohen X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Eric M. Bennett" Cc: am-info@venice.essential.org Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems References: <19991221035050.72B5221B1A@venice.essential.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Eric M. Bennett" wrote: > > Mitch Stone wrote: > > > >But how much of a market for "aspirin" is there? There is a market > > >for painkillers; I don't think too many people care what is in the > > >pill as long as it kills the pain. > > > >Oh, now Eric. Really. Of course some people care -- if they didn't care, > >we would have only aspirin or some other ultra-cheap paim pills for sale, > >instead of a wide variety over-the-counter and prescription painkillers. > >Myself, I don't take aspirin -- only ibuprofen. Works better and doesn't > >give me heartburn (like some other things I could mention). > > Doesn't that prove the point? You care about the effect the pill has > when you ingest it, not the chemical structure of the active > ingredient. When somebody comes out with something that kills pain > for you better than aspirin, you don't say, "Oh, I can't buy that, > it's not aspirin; I'm only in the market for aspirin". > > And it doesn't matter if there are a few people who do specifically > want aspirin for some reason (maybe they like getting heartburn for > some odd reason). As long as *most aspirin users* are more > interested in what kills pain, then any hypothetical aspirin > monopolist would have its aspirin prices kept in check by the threat > of *most* of its users switching to sodium naproxen or some other > painkiller. > Come on, Eric, as a chemist, you're putting much too fine a point on it. True, when my wife refuses to take ibuprofen she could care less about the chemical structure, but the side-effects it has on her stomach are very much to be avoided. But she'll damned well read the label on any pain reliever to see that it contains acetominophen and not ibuprofen. And then there's aspirin. Some people take it not as a painkiller but to reduce the risk of heart attacks. Admit it, this is a poor example. From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 11:05:37 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-2.tricreations.com [216.205.16.111]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D053821B21 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 11:04:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.196]) by lamlaw.com ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 11:04:29 -0500 Message-ID: <385FA691.DD6E5E74@lamlaw.com> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 08:10:57 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems References: <385ed5723863d21c@mail0.mailsender.net> (added by mail0.mailsender.net) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Paul, Paul Rickard wrote: > > sujal@worldnet.att.net > > >> For this reason, I would argue that force-bundling by a monopolist is > >> often dangerous if there is still significant innovation going on in > >> a given product area, even if the monopolist's product is currently a > >> little better. Whether the possible economic benefits to the > >> consumer that might arise from bundling outweighs this danger is > >> something that would have to be examined case by case. > > > >Not to be annoying, but how would you define force-bundling? > > I'd describe it less as 'forced' than just 'unreversible'. The main > difference between bundled Windows browsers and Linux bowsers (beyond the > monopoly market share) is that Linux browser can be removed or replaced > while Windows cannot be separated from the browser that comes with it. Ability to remove a product is a different issue than the suppression of innovation caused by the forced sale. Judge Jackson made a specific finding that innovative products either were or were highly likely to have been suppressed by Microsoft bundling IE. And, on that point he is right on. We are just at the beginning of a very large and extensive process of highly innovative ideas related to the internet. There is no doubt that Microsoft has and will suppress enormous innovation simply by bundling IE and preventing many companies from having a fair market to sell their developments. Between being prevented from removing a program and being forced to buy it, there is no doubt that being forced to buy it is much more harmful to consumers in the long run. We are fortunate that the judge had the knowledge and foresight to draw that conclusion. The quality of any product force sold is simply not relevant because if it has merit it can deliver that benefit without being forced upon consumers (assuming a monopolist does not block it). It is siimply incorrect to argue that any product forced upon consumers benefits them and should be permitted to be marketed in that way. It is simply false. No product regardless of its merits justifies forcing a single consumer to buy it. That is the consumers choice not the seller. (Unless you live on a different planet.) -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 11:13:49 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-2.tricreations.com [216.205.16.111]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 56B3C21B21 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 11:13:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.196]) by lamlaw.com ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 11:13:24 -0500 Message-ID: <385FA8A8.A219BA59@lamlaw.com> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 08:19:52 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems References: <19991221064801.6F61721C33@venice.essential.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mitch, Mitch Stone wrote: > > --- From a message sent by Lewis A. Mettler on 12/20/99 6:45 PM --- > > >> They get much more than exclusive marketing capabilities -- patents and > >> copyrights give them ownership of the intellectual property and grants > >> them the authority to do with it as they wish. > > > >False. Patents and copyrights only let them prevent others from doing > >some things. They are not grants of unlimited choice or use. > > > >Patented and copyrighted products can still violate antitrust laws. > >And, they can be precluded from the market if they violate almost any > >other law as well. > > > >It is flatly incorrect to suggest they can "do as they wish" with any > >product patented, copyrighted or not. > > A distinction without a difference. Patents and copyrights protect > intellectual property from theft. Intellectual property would be > worthless without these protections. Sorry. The distinction is very important. A patent does not even give you a right to sell the product at all. It only prevents someone else from selling it. That is why a patent does not give you any right at all to do as you wish. In fact, it does not even give you a "right" other than to sue someone else or license it. Your ability to sell your "invention" depends upon other laws that may very well prevent it. > > >> An inappropriate example which only underscores the weakness of your > >> point. Only Bayer can sell under the Bayer trade name, which they own, > >> but the trade name is NOT the product. Bayer does not own the chemical > >> formulation for aspirin, or even the trademark name aspirin. > > > >At one time Bayer in fact did own the aspirin trademark. They lost it. > > Irrelevant. > > >> Anyone can > >> manufacture and sell aspirin. > > > >Now. Yes. > > Trademarks are not relevant. Trademarks are not products. Windows is a trademark. Java is a trademark. Try telling Microsoft that the word "Windows" mean nothing. > > >And, someday Windows may no longer be a trademark held by Microsoft > >either. > > Irrelevant. Trademarks are not products. In the minds of most consumers "trademarks" are indeed "products". Trademarks are the names by which all buyers and sellers identify products. There are not the products themselves, but how are you ever going to find what you want to buy without them? Without trademarks all you have are generic descriptions of products. -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 11:27:20 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-2.tricreations.com [216.205.16.111]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 88F1421B21 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 11:27:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.196]) by lamlaw.com ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 11:26:53 -0500 Message-ID: <385FABD1.1631A95A@lamlaw.com> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 08:33:21 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] Bill Gates was indeed harmed financially References: <19991220170045.C71D521B1A@venice.essential.org> <385E6926.D18C19E9@lamlaw.com> <385E78C0.812F5B1E@documentprocessing.com> <385E7EE7.4C9429C1@lamlaw.com> <385E84D1.3B4E5FFF@documentprocessing.com> <385E8AE0.5E34D7AA@lamlaw.com> <385EA404.1B134332@documentprocessing.com> <385EAC8D.1A04E91@lamlaw.com> <385F80F5.150EB71A@sdrc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Joe, Joe Moore wrote: > > "Lewis A. Mettler" wrote: > (snip) > > Suites are okay provided that the products are available separately. > > Why is it that no one on this list acknowledges the difference between a > > forced bundle and a suite? > (much snippage) > > Separate products should be sold separately. Otherwise, it is a bundle > > and is therefore unfair and harmful. > > > > Again, office suites do not cause this harm since most products > > contained therein can be purchased separately. > > > > I find it interesting that all those who refuse to acknowledge harm by > > bundling also refuse to acknowledge the difference between a suite of > > products also available separately and bundles where that is not the > > case. Bundles cause harm that suites do not. > > Perhaps because there is no clear line. If a product is available separately it is real easy to see and buy. Can you focus okay? Do you see Windows 98 without IE on the shelf? If not, IE is bundled. > > Since Word and Excel are sold separately, Office is a suite, so there is > no harm there. But since Word and Excel both contain a spellchecker, > they are both bundles, and so all consumers are harmed. Hmm... Yes. The harm is present. And, yes it is unfair. But, being unfair and being harmful does not necessarily make it illegal. Precluding competitors from the market can in fact make it illegal. If Word and Excel bundled a spell checker to block out a competitor then, yes, that act can in fact be illegal. The same is true with bundling add-ons to browsers such as media players, etc. This is why it is so important that true, open and fair competition exist in browsers. It permits innovative and highly beneficial products such as media players to have a better chance of finding a market for their technology. Bundling can and does preclude highly innovative products from the marketplace. If Communicator had not gone open source, it would be gone by now. If Microsoft not prevented from forcing the sale of IE an enormous quantity of highly innovative products will never see the marketplace simply because of illegal bundling. Focus upon the ability to preclude competitors. If you try to understand bundling at the product level you will be confused forever. -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 11:33:36 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-2.tricreations.com [216.205.16.111]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2E1F721B83 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 11:33:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.196]) by lamlaw.com ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 11:33:10 -0500 Message-ID: <385FAD4A.91C9C3DF@lamlaw.com> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 08:39:38 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems References: <19991221064801.6F61721C33@venice.essential.org> <19991221081305.B14256@omnifarious.mn.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Eric, "Eric M. Hopper" wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 20, 1999 at 10:48:00PM -0800, Mitch Stone wrote: > >> > >> It is flatly incorrect to suggest they can "do as they wish" with > >> any product patented, copyrighted or not. > > > > A distinction without a difference. Patents and copyrights protect > > intellectual property from theft. Intellectual property would be > > worthless without these protections. > > I object to both your use of the phrase 'intellectual property', > the word 'theft', and your stipulation that ideas are worthless if > everyone can use them. Bayer still makes lots of money off of aspirin, > despite the fact that any conceivable patent expired many years ago. > > In fact, from a legal sense, patents can't be stolen. There is > no criminal code governing patents. Copywritten work can sort of be > stolen. There is at least a criminal code governing it. I do think it > was a pretty bad legislative decision to create that code though. It > should've remained a purely civil matter. Any property can be stolen and that act can be prosecuted as theft, trespass or conversion. It is a bit more difficult to steal a patent because it is assigned to individuals however, it can be done. > > > Trademarks are not relevant. Trademarks are not products. > > Try telling that to a marketing person. Many companies hold > onto trademarks as being one of the most precious things they own. Trademarks are indeed equivalent to products. Without "Coca-Cola" on the bottle you only have a caramel color sugar and caffeine soda. No body would touch that. -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 11:39:46 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-2.tricreations.com [216.205.16.111]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C01CE21BD3 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 11:39:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.196]) by lamlaw.com ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 11:39:20 -0500 Message-ID: <385FAEBC.A61E095B@lamlaw.com> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 08:45:48 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: am-info@lists.essential.org Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems References: <19991221035050.72B5221B1A@venice.essential.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Eric, A readily available substitute is what keeps Bayer from having any monopoly like power in pain killer medicines. The reason why Bayer lost its "Aspirin" trademark is simply because it did not sue everyone that began using it and it became a generic name for the product. This is the reason why Coca-Cola and other companies always fire off their lawyers at the first sign of someone using their trademark. That is an expensive and necessary proposition for a company like Coca-Cola. But, they think it is necessary. Bayer did not. You can agree or disagree and send your comments to Bayer or Coca-Cola. "Eric M. Bennett" wrote: > > Mitch Stone wrote: > > > >But how much of a market for "aspirin" is there? There is a market > > >for painkillers; I don't think too many people care what is in the > > >pill as long as it kills the pain. > > > >Oh, now Eric. Really. Of course some people care -- if they didn't care, > >we would have only aspirin or some other ultra-cheap paim pills for sale, > >instead of a wide variety over-the-counter and prescription painkillers. > >Myself, I don't take aspirin -- only ibuprofen. Works better and doesn't > >give me heartburn (like some other things I could mention). > > Doesn't that prove the point? You care about the effect the pill has > when you ingest it, not the chemical structure of the active > ingredient. When somebody comes out with something that kills pain > for you better than aspirin, you don't say, "Oh, I can't buy that, > it's not aspirin; I'm only in the market for aspirin". > > And it doesn't matter if there are a few people who do specifically > want aspirin for some reason (maybe they like getting heartburn for > some odd reason). As long as *most aspirin users* are more > interested in what kills pain, then any hypothetical aspirin > monopolist would have its aspirin prices kept in check by the threat > of *most* of its users switching to sodium naproxen or some other > painkiller. > > -- > Eric Bennett / ericb@pobox.com / emb22@cornell.edu www.pobox.com/~ericb/ > Cornell University, Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology > > I am not a vegetarian because I love animals; I am a vegetarian because > I hate plants. -- A. Whitney Brown > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 11:52:30 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-2.tricreations.com [216.205.16.111]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 88C9C21C57 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 11:52:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.196]) by lamlaw.com ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 11:52:02 -0500 Message-ID: <385FB1B6.33D588D9@lamlaw.com> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 08:58:30 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: am-info@lists.essential.org Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems References: <385ED9DB.C2971A73@pobox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Eric, Eric Bennett wrote: > > Sujal Shah wrote: > > > > "Eric M. Bennett" wrote: > > [SNIP] > > > For this reason, I would argue that force-bundling by a monopolist is > > > often dangerous if there is still significant innovation going on in > > > a given product area, even if the monopolist's product is currently a > > > little better. Whether the possible economic benefits to the > > > consumer that might arise from bundling outweighs this danger is > > > something that would have to be examined case by case. > > > > Not to be annoying, but how would you define force-bundling? > > If the one of the items is only availabe in the bundle and not > separately, then anyone who wants this item has to buy the bundle to get > it. That is a force bundle. If the items are all available separately > it's not a force bundle... unless perhaps price of each individual item > on its own is greater than the cost of the bundle itself. > > > This also > > raises the question, to me at least, whether the implication of what > > you're saying is that a monopolist can never bundle *anything*, even if > > the combination would be beneficial for consumers. I'm not sure I'd go > > that far. > > No, I'm not saying that. Note the statement above: > > "Whether the possible economic benefits to the > consumer that might arise from bundling outweighs this danger is > something that would have to be examined case by case." Sorry. But, the focus is upon the ability to preclude competitors from the market not an external measure of benefit or harm to the consumer. Read the findings of facts and the proposed conclusions of law from the DOJ. Antitrust law (and bundling) focuses upon the preclusion of competitors from the market. > > If almost everybody wants the bundle, the monopolist may be able to make > an efficiency argument to justify not offering a separate product. If > consumers overall are paying less due to the force-bundling than they > would pay where the products are offered separately, then it's likely > the monopolist's actions are okay. Focus upon the ability to preclude competitors from the market. It is not the sellers choice to bundle or not. > > My point is to focus on the tradeoffs. Lewis seems to focus exclusively > on the likely dangers of force-bundling, but force-bundling can also > have benefits, and both need to be considered. Benefits of the bundle are not considered. See the findings of facts and the proposed conclusions of law from the DOJ. The "LAW" focuses upon the ability to preclude competitors from the market not the benefit of the product. > As I pointed out before, > when you have 30 options and you force a company to sell all possible > combinations of those items, you've gone to the point where there are > many combinations that nobody will want, and some that only one person > will want. Do as the auto industry does. > In many cases it is not cost-effective to offer all of > them. Choices that *many* people are interested in--browser vs. no > browser, for example--will still be offered. But others, like floppy > driver vs. no floppy driver--will not. No one needs to decide that issue. If you allow all those in the business to offer those products and combinations they think will sell then consumers will have the choices they need. If nobody wants the PC without networking and without browsers, then that OEM will not sell to many will they? But no one needs to decide that for the OEM. That is there call alone. It is there risk. If an OEM wants to offer a basic OS plus Communicator, they should be able to do so. If an OEM wants to offer a basic OS plus Lantastic, they should be able to do so. Both of the above would cost less than a PC today. Millions of consumers would be interested in a lower cost system devoid of technology which they do not want. > > > It may be that a desired result of the current case would be some > > precendent for guidelines on how to evaluate the cases of monopolists > > bundling items. I also don't think that "significant innovation" is a > > sufficient criteria for determining whether a bundle harms consumers. > > Rather, I think in general monopolists should have a limited, but clear > > set of guidelines to follow. > > Separation of demand ought to work fine. If there is significant demand > for > separated products and the monopolist does not provide them, the > monopolist is harming consumers. If, on the other hand, 99% of > customers were demanding that Windows come with IE, it would likely be > dangerous to punish Microsoft for force-bundling. It is more likely that 80% of consumers would prefer Windows without networking but including Communicator. Of course, the monopolist would have none of that. > > That leaves us to argue over "significant demand", but we can probably > agree that when about 50% of computer buyers say they don't want IE, > that is significant demand. 80% wanted Communicator. > For much of its history Microsoft has > designed OSes for markets that are smaller than half of today's market. > I would suggest for a starting point that if consumers will save money > overall by having the products separated, then that should demonstrate > significant demand. All you have to do is give the consumers the choice. You do not have to short out your brain cells trying to control the industry. -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 12:04:24 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from vcnet.com (mail.vcnet.com [209.239.239.15]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AF85321B83 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 12:04:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 91420 invoked from network); 21 Dec 1999 17:04:22 -0000 Received: from port64.dial.vcnet.com (HELO ?209.239.238.64?) (209.239.238.64) by mail.vcnet.com with SMTP; 21 Dec 1999 17:04:22 -0000 Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:04:21 -0800 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Mitch Stone To: "am-info" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-Id: <19991221170423.AF85321B83@venice.essential.org> --- From a message sent by Eric M. Bennett on 12/20/99 11:21 PM --- >>Oh, now Eric. Really. Of course some people care -- if they didn't care, >>we would have only aspirin or some other ultra-cheap paim pills for sale, >>instead of a wide variety over-the-counter and prescription painkillers. >>Myself, I don't take aspirin -- only ibuprofen. Works better and doesn't >>give me heartburn (like some other things I could mention). > >Doesn't that prove the point? You care about the effect the pill has >when you ingest it, not the chemical structure of the active >ingredient. When somebody comes out with something that kills pain >for you better than aspirin, you don't say, "Oh, I can't buy that, >it's not aspirin; I'm only in the market for aspirin". > >And it doesn't matter if there are a few people who do specifically >want aspirin for some reason (maybe they like getting heartburn for >some odd reason). As long as *most aspirin users* are more >interested in what kills pain, then any hypothetical aspirin >monopolist would have its aspirin prices kept in check by the threat >of *most* of its users switching to sodium naproxen or some other >painkiller. Okay, I get it. You're quite right. Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 12:04:24 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from vcnet.com (mail.vcnet.com [209.239.239.15]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5B5DA21BD3 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 12:04:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 91426 invoked from network); 21 Dec 1999 17:04:23 -0000 Received: from port64.dial.vcnet.com (HELO ?209.239.238.64?) (209.239.238.64) by mail.vcnet.com with SMTP; 21 Dec 1999 17:04:23 -0000 Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Corel Lawsuit Challenges U.S. Government Contract Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:04:22 -0800 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Mitch Stone To: "am-info" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-Id: <19991221170424.5B5DA21BD3@venice.essential.org> --- From a message sent by Norm on 12/21/99 3:01 AM --- >On Sat, 18 Dec 1999 12:47:20 -0500 (EST), Mitch Stone wrote: > >>I recently received a Request for Proposal from a California state agency >>specifically stipulating that all of the contractor's work be prepared >>and presented in Microsoft Word for Windows -- not even Word for the >>Macintosh (assuming we owned that) is allowed, apparently. So I guess we >>won't be proposing. We see this in federal contract specifications as >>well. > > > Was this in response to something you were planning to submit?? >If so you might want to lodge a formal complaint. Although I seriously >doubt it will change anything, at least it might bring the issue to >their attention. No, it was right there in the contract specifications in the RFP. In other words, if you submit a bid for the project, you agree to supply the product in that manner if selected. If a government agency specified in an RFP "the report shall be delivered on Southfield 100% rag bond paper," some might question the inclusion of the brand name rather than a generic paper stock specification. But nobody seems to bat an eyelash with a specification to use Microsoft Word for Windows. And filing a formal complaint would only brand one as a crank, effectively disqualifying them from any further contracting opportunities with this agency. It's a lose-lose proposition. Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 12:04:28 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from vcnet.com (mail.vcnet.com [209.239.239.15]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B5EA421C61 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 12:04:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 91447 invoked from network); 21 Dec 1999 17:04:24 -0000 Received: from port64.dial.vcnet.com (HELO ?209.239.238.64?) (209.239.238.64) by mail.vcnet.com with SMTP; 21 Dec 1999 17:04:24 -0000 Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:04:23 -0800 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Mitch Stone Cc: "AM-INFO" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-Id: <19991221170425.B5EA421C61@venice.essential.org> --- From a message sent by Eric M. Hopper on 12/21/99 6:13 AM --- >> A distinction without a difference. Patents and copyrights protect >> intellectual property from theft. Intellectual property would be >> worthless without these protections. > > I object to both your use of the phrase 'intellectual property', >the word 'theft', and your stipulation that ideas are worthless if >everyone can use them. Bayer still makes lots of money off of aspirin, >despite the fact that any conceivable patent expired many years ago. True, but intellectual property would not be property if it was not owned, by definition. Perhaps worthless is not the best descriptor, but certainly a lack or loss of intellectual property protections would result in a very changed environment for the inventor. > In fact, from a legal sense, patents can't be stolen. There is >no criminal code governing patents. Copywritten work can sort of be >stolen. There is at least a criminal code governing it. I do think it >was a pretty bad legislative decision to create that code though. It >should've remained a purely civil matter. Patent theft is a civil matter, then. I don't see where that alters the point. Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 12:04:31 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from vcnet.com (mail.vcnet.com [209.239.239.15]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8CEBC21C6C for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 12:04:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 91452 invoked from network); 21 Dec 1999 17:04:26 -0000 Received: from port64.dial.vcnet.com (HELO ?209.239.238.64?) (209.239.238.64) by mail.vcnet.com with SMTP; 21 Dec 1999 17:04:26 -0000 Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: a coherent whole Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:04:24 -0800 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Mitch Stone To: "Am-Info" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-Id: <19991221170426.8CEBC21C6C@venice.essential.org> --- From a message sent by Paul Rickard on 12/20/99 5:47 PM --- > Just backing your original point. I totally agree - bundling the >browser as a user interface is an admission that the touted Windows UI >isn't all it's cracked up to be. Okay, because I thought you might be implying that I heisted the idea. Like I always say, "originality is the art of concealing your source." Read that in Reader's Digest, I think. Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 13:15:16 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from heimdall.sdrc.com (heimdall.sdrc.com [146.122.132.195]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1FA1233FC for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 13:03:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailhub-cvg.sdrc.com (mailhub-cvg.sdrc.com [146.122.142.31]) by heimdall.sdrc.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA13280 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 13:03:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from rios85.sdrc.com (rios85 [146.122.6.127]) by mailhub-cvg.sdrc.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA10744 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 13:03:39 -0500 (EST) Received: by rios85.sdrc.com id NAA21194; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 13:03:37 -0500 Sender: joe.moore@sdrc.com Message-ID: <385FC0F9.EE66433D@sdrc.com> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 13:03:37 -0500 From: Joe Moore Organization: No, but I can still find what I'm looking for. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51i [en_US] (X11; U; AIX 4.3) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: AM-INFO References: <19991220170045.C71D521B1A@venice.essential.org> <385E6926.D18C19E9@lamlaw.com> <385E78C0.812F5B1E@documentprocessing.com> <385E7EE7.4C9429C1@lamlaw.com> <385E84D1.3B4E5FFF@documentprocessing.com> <385E8AE0.5E34D7AA@lamlaw.com> <385EA404.1B134332@documentprocessing.com> <385EAC8D.1A04E91@lamlaw.com> <385F80F5.150EB71A@sdrc.com> <385FABD1.1631A95A@lamlaw.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Am-info] Please give an example of a "suite" "Lewis A. Mettler" wrote: > Joe Moore wrote: > > "Lewis A. Mettler" wrote: > > > Separate products should be sold separately. Otherwise, it is a bundle > > > and is therefore unfair and harmful. > > > > > > Again, office suites do not cause this harm since most products > > > contained therein can be purchased separately. > > Since Word and Excel are sold separately, Office is a suite, so there is > > no harm there. But since Word and Excel both contain a spellchecker, > > they are both bundles, and so all consumers are harmed. Hmm... > Yes. The harm is present. And, yes it is unfair. You said above (quoted) that office suites do not cause this harm. > But, being unfair and being harmful does not necessarily make it > illegal. I said nothing about the legality of this. I want you to give an example of a suite. Give an example of software which is available both separately and as a suite which does not harm consumers. You can't. So therefore the whole software industry is harmful to consumers. String 'em up! > Precluding competitors from the market can in fact make it illegal. > If Word and Excel bundled a spell checker to block out a competitor > then, yes, that act can in fact be illegal. I am not responsible for deciding about the legality of an action. Please address the question at hand, which is "Give an example of a software suite." > The same is true with bundling add-ons to browsers such as media > players, etc. > This is why it is so important that true, open and fair competition > exist in browsers. > It permits innovative and highly beneficial products such as media > players to have a better chance of finding a market for their > technology. Yes, irreversible bundling is usually anticompetitive. That is not at issue here. Please give an example of a software suite. > Bundling can and does preclude highly innovative products from the > marketplace. If Communicator had not gone open source, it would be gone > by now. Communicator is not open source. It is still closed source, owned by America Online. Mozilla is an extension to the Communicator project, where most of the source code was released to the public. Some key components were covered by other companies intellectual property rights and could not be released. Mozilla is not Communicator. > If Microsoft not prevented from forcing the sale of IE an enormous > quantity of highly innovative products will never see the marketplace > simply because of illegal bundling. > > Focus upon the ability to preclude competitors. Focus on answering a question which you cut out of my post. I wrote, but you snipped: > Can you give us an example of a suite? --Joe -- IBM's vision is apparently to make IBM hardware "scream with Microsoft software" --The Register, http://www.theregister.co.uk/990927-000003.html I have visions of screaming with (at and about) Microsoft software, too. From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 13:45:10 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-1.tricreations.com [216.205.16.110]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9ABB921C91 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 13:45:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.196]) by lamlaw.com ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 13:44:35 -0500 Message-ID: <385FCC1F.AC4283D9@lamlaw.com> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 10:51:11 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] Please give an example of a "suite" References: <19991220170045.C71D521B1A@venice.essential.org> <385E6926.D18C19E9@lamlaw.com> <385E78C0.812F5B1E@documentprocessing.com> <385E7EE7.4C9429C1@lamlaw.com> <385E84D1.3B4E5FFF@documentprocessing.com> <385E8AE0.5E34D7AA@lamlaw.com> <385EA404.1B134332@documentprocessing.com> <385EAC8D.1A04E91@lamlaw.com> <385F80F5.150EB71A@sdrc.com> <385FABD1.1631A95A@lamlaw.com> <385FC0F9.EE66433D@sdrc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Joe, Visit your computer store if you want examples of "suites". If you still can find an instance where the same products are sold separately and as a suite, read the testimony in the antitrust trial. They discussed one example sold by Microsoft. Joe Moore wrote: > > "Lewis A. Mettler" wrote: > > Joe Moore wrote: > > > "Lewis A. Mettler" wrote: > > > > Separate products should be sold separately. Otherwise, it is a bundle > > > > and is therefore unfair and harmful. > > > > > > > > Again, office suites do not cause this harm since most products > > > > contained therein can be purchased separately. > > > Since Word and Excel are sold separately, Office is a suite, so there is > > > no harm there. But since Word and Excel both contain a spellchecker, > > > they are both bundles, and so all consumers are harmed. Hmm... > > Yes. The harm is present. And, yes it is unfair. > > You said above (quoted) that office suites do not cause this harm. > > > But, being unfair and being harmful does not necessarily make it > > illegal. > I said nothing about the legality of this. I want you to give an > example of a suite. > > Give an example of software which is available both separately and as a > suite which does not harm consumers. You can't. So therefore the whole > software industry is harmful to consumers. String 'em up! > > > Precluding competitors from the market can in fact make it illegal. > > If Word and Excel bundled a spell checker to block out a competitor > > then, yes, that act can in fact be illegal. > I am not responsible for deciding about the legality of an action. > Please address the question at hand, which is "Give an example of a > software suite." > > > The same is true with bundling add-ons to browsers such as media > > players, etc. > > This is why it is so important that true, open and fair competition > > exist in browsers. > > It permits innovative and highly beneficial products such as media > > players to have a better chance of finding a market for their > > technology. > Yes, irreversible bundling is usually anticompetitive. That is not at > issue here. Please give an example of a software suite. > > > Bundling can and does preclude highly innovative products from the > > marketplace. If Communicator had not gone open source, it would be gone > > by now. > Communicator is not open source. It is still closed source, owned by > America Online. Mozilla is an extension to the Communicator project, > where most of the source code was released to the public. Some key > components were covered by other companies intellectual property rights > and could not be released. Mozilla is not Communicator. > > > If Microsoft not prevented from forcing the sale of IE an enormous > > quantity of highly innovative products will never see the marketplace > > simply because of illegal bundling. > > > > Focus upon the ability to preclude competitors. > Focus on answering a question which you cut out of my post. > > I wrote, but you snipped: > > Can you give us an example of a suite? > > --Joe > > -- > IBM's vision is apparently to make IBM hardware "scream with Microsoft > software" --The Register, > http://www.theregister.co.uk/990927-000003.html > > I have visions of screaming with (at and about) Microsoft software, too. > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 13:55:24 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from heimdall.sdrc.com (heimdall.sdrc.com [146.122.132.195]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 640EF21C8E for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 13:55:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailhub-cvg.sdrc.com (mailhub-cvg.sdrc.com [146.122.142.31]) by heimdall.sdrc.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA17572 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 13:55:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from rios85.sdrc.com (rios85 [146.122.6.127]) by mailhub-cvg.sdrc.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA17358 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 13:55:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by rios85.sdrc.com id NAA54372; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 13:55:20 -0500 Sender: joe.moore@sdrc.com Message-ID: <385FCD17.47E24C3C@sdrc.com> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 13:55:19 -0500 From: Joe Moore Organization: No, but I can still find what I'm looking for. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51i [en_US] (X11; U; AIX 4.3) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] Please give an example of a "suite" References: <19991220170045.C71D521B1A@venice.essential.org> <385E6926.D18C19E9@lamlaw.com> <385E78C0.812F5B1E@documentprocessing.com> <385E7EE7.4C9429C1@lamlaw.com> <385E84D1.3B4E5FFF@documentprocessing.com> <385E8AE0.5E34D7AA@lamlaw.com> <385EA404.1B134332@documentprocessing.com> <385EAC8D.1A04E91@lamlaw.com> <385F80F5.150EB71A@sdrc.com> <385FABD1.1631A95A@lamlaw.com> <385FC0F9.EE66433D@sdrc.com> <385FCC1F.AC4283D9@lamlaw.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Lewis A. Mettler" wrote: > Visit your computer store if you want examples of "suites". > > If you still can find an instance where the same products are sold > separately and as a suite, read the testimony in the antitrust trial. > They discussed one example sold by Microsoft. All of them are still bundles. Office is not sold without a spell checker. Lantastic is not sold without IPX support. Windows is not sold without Solitaire. Linux is not sold without ghostview. I'm still waiting for an example. Since you can't tell me one, you must be wrong that suites exist. So the whole software industry harms all consumers. String 'em Up! --Joe -- IBM's vision is apparently to make IBM hardware "scream with Microsoft software" --The Register, http://www.theregister.co.uk/990927-000003.html I have visions of screaming with (at and about) Microsoft software, too. From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 14:02:20 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-1.tricreations.com [216.205.16.110]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D746821D11 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 14:02:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.196]) by lamlaw.com ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 14:01:47 -0500 Message-ID: <385FD026.F4AB7CB8@lamlaw.com> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 11:08:22 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joe Moore Cc: AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] Please give an example of a "suite" References: <19991220170045.C71D521B1A@venice.essential.org> <385E6926.D18C19E9@lamlaw.com> <385E78C0.812F5B1E@documentprocessing.com> <385E7EE7.4C9429C1@lamlaw.com> <385E84D1.3B4E5FFF@documentprocessing.com> <385E8AE0.5E34D7AA@lamlaw.com> <385EA404.1B134332@documentprocessing.com> <385EAC8D.1A04E91@lamlaw.com> <385F80F5.150EB71A@sdrc.com> <385FABD1.1631A95A@lamlaw.com> <385FC0F9.EE66433D@sdrc.com> <385FCC1F.AC4283D9@lamlaw.com> <385FCD17.47E24C3C@sdrc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Joe, If you can not find products sold separately and products sold as suites I suggest you clean your glasses. Joe Moore wrote: > > "Lewis A. Mettler" wrote: > > Visit your computer store if you want examples of "suites". > > > > If you still can find an instance where the same products are sold > > separately and as a suite, read the testimony in the antitrust trial. > > They discussed one example sold by Microsoft. > > All of them are still bundles. Office is not sold without a spell > checker. > > Lantastic is not sold without IPX support. > > Windows is not sold without Solitaire. > > Linux is not sold without ghostview. > > I'm still waiting for an example. Since you can't tell me one, you must > be wrong that suites exist. So the whole software industry harms all > consumers. > String 'em Up! > > --Joe > > -- > IBM's vision is apparently to make IBM hardware "scream with Microsoft > software" --The Register, > http://www.theregister.co.uk/990927-000003.html > > I have visions of screaming with (at and about) Microsoft software, too. > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 14:04:51 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-1.tricreations.com [216.205.16.110]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D62AB21D21 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 14:04:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.196]) by lamlaw.com ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 14:04:14 -0500 Message-ID: <385FD0BB.F859D3F1@lamlaw.com> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 11:10:51 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] Please give an example of a "suite" References: <19991220170045.C71D521B1A@venice.essential.org> <385E6926.D18C19E9@lamlaw.com> <385E78C0.812F5B1E@documentprocessing.com> <385E7EE7.4C9429C1@lamlaw.com> <385E84D1.3B4E5FFF@documentprocessing.com> <385E8AE0.5E34D7AA@lamlaw.com> <385EA404.1B134332@documentprocessing.com> <385EAC8D.1A04E91@lamlaw.com> <385F80F5.150EB71A@sdrc.com> <385FABD1.1631A95A@lamlaw.com> <385FC0F9.EE66433D@sdrc.com> <385FCC1F.AC4283D9@lamlaw.com> <385FCD17.47E24C3C@sdrc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Joe, If you can not find products sold separately and products sold as suites I suggest you clean your glasses. Joe Moore wrote: > > "Lewis A. Mettler" wrote: > > Visit your computer store if you want examples of "suites". > > > > If you still can find an instance where the same products are sold > > separately and as a suite, read the testimony in the antitrust trial. > > They discussed one example sold by Microsoft. > > All of them are still bundles. Office is not sold without a spell > checker. > > Lantastic is not sold without IPX support. > > Windows is not sold without Solitaire. > > Linux is not sold without ghostview. > > I'm still waiting for an example. Since you can't tell me one, you must > be wrong that suites exist. So the whole software industry harms all > consumers. > String 'em Up! > > --Joe > > -- > IBM's vision is apparently to make IBM hardware "scream with Microsoft > software" --The Register, > http://www.theregister.co.uk/990927-000003.html > > I have visions of screaming with (at and about) Microsoft software, too. > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 14:11:56 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from heimdall.sdrc.com (heimdall.sdrc.com [146.122.132.195]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EA3E21CCC for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 14:11:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailhub-cvg.sdrc.com (mailhub-cvg.sdrc.com [146.122.142.31]) by heimdall.sdrc.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA19260 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 14:11:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from rios85.sdrc.com (rios85 [146.122.6.127]) by mailhub-cvg.sdrc.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA00684 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 14:11:55 -0500 (EST) Received: by rios85.sdrc.com id OAA56040; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 14:11:53 -0500 Sender: joe.moore@sdrc.com Message-ID: <385FD0F9.3A358150@sdrc.com> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 14:11:53 -0500 From: Joe Moore Organization: No, but I can still find what I'm looking for. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51i [en_US] (X11; U; AIX 4.3) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] Please give an example of a "suite" References: <19991220170045.C71D521B1A@venice.essential.org> <385E6926.D18C19E9@lamlaw.com> <385E78C0.812F5B1E@documentprocessing.com> <385E7EE7.4C9429C1@lamlaw.com> <385E84D1.3B4E5FFF@documentprocessing.com> <385E8AE0.5E34D7AA@lamlaw.com> <385EA404.1B134332@documentprocessing.com> <385EAC8D.1A04E91@lamlaw.com> <385F80F5.150EB71A@sdrc.com> <385FABD1.1631A95A@lamlaw.com> <385FC0F9.EE66433D@sdrc.com> <385FCC1F.AC4283D9@lamlaw.com> <385FCD17.47E24C3C@sdrc.com> <385FD026.F4AB7CB8@lamlaw.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Wouldn't it be easier to answer the question rather than insult me? If there are so many software suites available, why not name one? The fact is that there are NO software suites. Only bundles. String 'em Up! "Lewis A. Mettler" wrote: > If you can not find products sold separately and products sold as suites > I suggest you clean your glasses. > > Joe Moore wrote: > > "Lewis A. Mettler" wrote: > > > Visit your computer store if you want examples of "suites". > > > > > > If you still can find an instance where the same products are sold > > > separately and as a suite, read the testimony in the antitrust trial. > > > They discussed one example sold by Microsoft. > > > > All of them are still bundles. Office is not sold without a spell > > checker. > > > > Lantastic is not sold without IPX support. > > > > Windows is not sold without Solitaire. > > > > Linux is not sold without ghostview. > > > > I'm still waiting for an example. Since you can't tell me one, you must > > be wrong that suites exist. So the whole software industry harms all > > consumers. > > String 'em Up! > > > > --Joe -- IBM's vision is apparently to make IBM hardware "scream with Microsoft software" --The Register, http://www.theregister.co.uk/990927-000003.html I have visions of screaming with (at and about) Microsoft software, too. From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 14:44:57 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from omnifarious.mn.org (ehopper-host105.dsl.visi.com [209.98.248.105]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1172921B34 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 14:44:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 14848 invoked by uid 310); 21 Dec 1999 19:44:53 -0000 Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 13:44:53 -0600 From: "Eric M. Hopper" To: Joe Moore Cc: AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] Please give an example of a "suite" Message-ID: <19991221134453.B14793@omnifarious.mn.org> References: <385E8AE0.5E34D7AA@lamlaw.com> <385EA404.1B134332@documentprocessing.com> <385EAC8D.1A04E91@lamlaw.com> <385F80F5.150EB71A@sdrc.com> <385FABD1.1631A95A@lamlaw.com> <385FC0F9.EE66433D@sdrc.com> <385FCC1F.AC4283D9@lamlaw.com> <385FCD17.47E24C3C@sdrc.com> <385FD026.F4AB7CB8@lamlaw.com> <385FD0F9.3A358150@sdrc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3i In-Reply-To: <385FD0F9.3A358150@sdrc.com> On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 02:11:53PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote: > > Wouldn't it be easier to answer the question rather than insult me? Don't hold your breath. :-) Have fun (if at all possible), -- Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God. Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul. ---Mark Twain -- Eric Hopper (hopper@omnifarious.mn.org http://omnifarious.mn.org/~hopper) -- From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 14:57:36 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from X3066.RESNET.CORNELL.EDU (X3066.RESNET.CORNELL.EDU [128.253.200.125]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7509121B34 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 14:57:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from [128.253.200.125] by X3066.RESNET.CORNELL.EDU with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 1.3.1); Tue, 21 Dec 1999 14:57:25 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: ericb@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <385F8408.9D2CE452@mcs.com> References: <19991221035050.72B5221B1A@venice.essential.org> <385F8408.9D2CE452@mcs.com> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 14:57:13 -0500 To: am-info@lists.essential.org From: "Eric M. Bennett" Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Steve Cohen wrote: > >Come on, Eric, as a chemist, you're putting much too fine a point on it. >True, when my wife refuses to take ibuprofen she could care less about >the chemical structure, but the side-effects it has on her stomach are >very much to be avoided. But she'll damned well read the label on any >pain reliever to see that it contains acetominophen and not ibuprofen. > >And then there's aspirin. Some people take it not as a painkiller but >to reduce the risk of heart attacks. > >Admit it, this is a poor example. Well, I think we've still demonstrated what I oringally wanted to do, which is offer a reminder that you have to be careful defining the markets. Even with these refinements, we're at the point of saying that people want a painkiller without side effects. Which is still different than saying they want "aspirin". -- Eric Bennett / ericb@pobox.com / emb22@cornell.edu www.pobox.com/~ericb/ Cornell University, Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology I am not a vegetarian because I love animals; I am a vegetarian because I hate plants. -- A. Whitney Brown From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 17:38:07 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from vcnet.com (mail.vcnet.com [209.239.239.15]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4078E21B1E for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 17:38:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 59958 invoked from network); 21 Dec 1999 22:38:06 -0000 Received: from port139.dial.vcnet.com (HELO ?209.239.238.139?) (209.239.238.139) by mail.vcnet.com with SMTP; 21 Dec 1999 22:38:06 -0000 Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 14:38:05 -0800 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Mitch Stone To: "am-info" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-Id: <19991221223807.4078E21B1E@venice.essential.org> --- From a message sent by Eric M. Bennett on 12/21/99 11:57 AM --- >Steve Cohen wrote: > >> >>Come on, Eric, as a chemist, you're putting much too fine a point on it. >>True, when my wife refuses to take ibuprofen she could care less about >>the chemical structure, but the side-effects it has on her stomach are >>very much to be avoided. But she'll damned well read the label on any >>pain reliever to see that it contains acetominophen and not ibuprofen. >> >>And then there's aspirin. Some people take it not as a painkiller but >>to reduce the risk of heart attacks. >> >>Admit it, this is a poor example. > >Well, I think we've still demonstrated what I oringally wanted to do, >which is offer a reminder that you have to be careful defining the >markets. Even with these refinements, we're at the point of saying >that people want a painkiller without side effects. Which is still >different than saying they want "aspirin". I didn't follow this reasoning at first either, but you have explained it to my satisfaction. The essential question is "what's the market?" If we start with an unreasonable or vague definition of a product market, we'll end up with absurd conclusions, such as "all bundling harms all consumers" and "a Chevy is a ready substitute for a Ford, but a Mac is not a ready substitute for a PC." Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 18:13:27 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-1.tricreations.com [216.205.16.110]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 182FA21BA8 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 18:13:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.189]) by lamlaw.com ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 18:12:50 -0500 Message-ID: <38600B01.406855D3@lamlaw.com> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 15:19:29 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems References: <19991221223807.4078E21B1E@venice.essential.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mitch, Mitch Stone wrote: > > --- From a message sent by Eric M. Bennett on 12/21/99 11:57 AM --- > > >Steve Cohen wrote: > > > >> > >>Come on, Eric, as a chemist, you're putting much too fine a point on it. > >>True, when my wife refuses to take ibuprofen she could care less about > >>the chemical structure, but the side-effects it has on her stomach are > >>very much to be avoided. But she'll damned well read the label on any > >>pain reliever to see that it contains acetominophen and not ibuprofen. > >> > >>And then there's aspirin. Some people take it not as a painkiller but > >>to reduce the risk of heart attacks. > >> > >>Admit it, this is a poor example. > > > >Well, I think we've still demonstrated what I oringally wanted to do, > >which is offer a reminder that you have to be careful defining the > >markets. Even with these refinements, we're at the point of saying > >that people want a painkiller without side effects. Which is still > >different than saying they want "aspirin". > > I didn't follow this reasoning at first either, but you have explained it > to my satisfaction. The essential question is "what's the market?" If we > start with an unreasonable or vague definition of a product market, we'll > end up with absurd conclusions, such as "all bundling harms all > consumers" and "a Chevy is a ready substitute for a Ford, but a Mac is > not a ready substitute for a PC." This is why you must focus upon the ability to preclude competitors and evaluate readily available substitutes rather than trying to bust your brain with abstract market definitions. In fact, one of the primary ways to determine a valid market definition is to do exactly that. Evaluate readily available substitutes. Market definitions are not invalid simply because you are confused. Rather you have to use the correct methods to arrive at them. And, that is why a Chevy is a substitute for a Ford but a Mac is not a ready substitute for a PC. See the judges findings of facts along this line. Also read the bubblegum deal. If you find in your particular case that you can switch OS rather than buy the gum, an alternative OS might be a ready substitute for you. If you find it is cheaper to buy the bubblegum (as embarrassing as that might be), then the MAC or Linux is not a ready substitute for "you". Bundling does in fact harm all consumers as has been proven by countless examples and illustrations including Bill Gates himself. Conclusions without illustration (as those promoters of products make) are worthless. Illustrate it. Illustrations win hands down. And, it has been illustrated how just about all classes of consumers are in fact harmed by bundling. False conclusions to the contrary fool no one. -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 11:23:45 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.50]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA05B21C65 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 11:23:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from attglobal.net (ip10.herndon29.va.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.144.10]) by avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA00872 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 08:23:41 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <385FAA8A.A7BEE5D3@attglobal.net> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 11:27:54 -0500 From: Gene Gaines Reply-To: gene.gaines@ibm.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: am-info@venice.essential.org References: <19991219104917.22189.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems Simon, Hey, my man. A little naive there? There are damn few people in this field who would believe that Microsoft would speak honestly to a potential competitor, or in fact even to a friendly company. There is a standard Microsoft refrain, which goes something like "You can abandon what you are doing because we are going into that area." Later, you find out they were blowing smoke, what they produced was nothing or so late or so poor that it did little more than spoil that market segment for honest companies. For Andreesen to have believed such a general statement by Microsoft would have been, how can I say it, stupid. For you to propagate such a statement is, how can I say it ... Simon, go back and analyze what you wrote. "Someone brought this to my attention ... unrefuted evidence ... comes from Mark Andreesen's own personal notes. Notes he wrote himself. It's right there in the evidence." FUD of a high order. Simon, there is still some M$ stuff stuck to you. I hope you will be able to scrub it off. It is not pretty. Gene Gaines gene.gaines@ibm.net Simon Cooke wrote: > > From: "Lewis A. Mettler" > > Microsoft bundled IE because they saw that 80% of the consumers > > preferred Navigator. > > Not according to sworn testimony from Marc Andreesen. > > Someone brought this to my attention (they're not on-list): > According to unrefuted (repeat, unrefuted) evidence > presented in the Microsoft case, Microsoft told > representatives from Netscape and other companies that it > planned to include its browser free with its operating > systems. This occurred prior to the release of the first > beta version of Netscape Navigator. > > This information comes from Mark Andreesen's own personal > notes. Notes he wrote himself. It's right there in the > evidence. > > It is literally impossible for Microsoft to have decided > to give away its browser, or for Microsoft to have > decided to include it with its operating systems, because > of Netscape's market position. When Microsoft announced > that decision, Netscape did not have a market position. > Netscape did not have a released product. Netscape did > not even have a beta version of a product. > > --- > > So... you're wrong, apparently. > > Simon From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 18:39:43 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA6CA21DAB; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 18:39:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (jamie.essential.org [216.0.124.36]) by genoa.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA05827; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 18:39:48 -0500 Sender: jl@genoa.essential.org Message-ID: <38601D7F.40CF5A5F@cptech.org> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 19:38:23 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Multiple recipients of list , ecommerce Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Am-info] Ralph Nader on Consumer Harm in Microsoft case This is part of a talk that Ralph Nader gave to a recent Open Source event in NYC. Jamie Love (http://www.cptech.org/ms/harm.html) Consumer Harm in the Microsoft Case by Ralph Nader Address to The Bazaar - An Open Source Software Event New York, New York December 15, 1999 Every time the Microsoft antitrust case moves forward, one observes a new wave of "where is the harm?" opinion articles in daily newspapers, presenting Microsoft's anticompetitive practices as harmful to competitors but not consumers. Judge Jackson's 206 page findings of fact addressed the issue of consumer harm in ways that resonated with many computer experts. While Judge Jackson mentioned that Microsoft had considerable leeway in terms of pricing Microsoft Windows, citing an internal Microsoft memorandum comparing the benefits of a $49 or $89 price for an upgrade price for Windows 98, the findings of fact devoted considerable attention to the non-price issues, such as those relating to innovation, choice and software quality, that are key to the Microsoft case. However, Judge Jackson's findings of fact are limited by the scope of the government lawsuit against Microsoft, both in terms of the types of anticompetitive conduct and the harm to consumers, and therefore understates the harm of Microsoft's monopoly to consumers. The US Department of Justice and State Attorney Generals have decided to prosecute a relatively narrow case against Microsoft, largely ignoring a plethora of issues relating to Microsoft's huge power in the desktop applications area, including the components of Microsoft Office, or the impact of its anticompetitive enterprise licensing strategies. We often hear from consumers who say they are harmed by Microsoft's monopoly abuses. Here are some of the complaints. Because this is a meeting about Linux, a free operating system, I will begin with the pricing issues. Pricing Issues Windows is too expensive. The price for Microsoft Windows depends upon how you buy it. A license for Windows is often bundled with a new PC. That doesn't mean it is free -- only that the OEM has paid for the license. When people talk about software prices, they sometimes forget that typically new technologies begin with high prices. Television sets, compact disk recorders and personal computers are only a few examples of this. Automobiles were very expensive when they were first introduced, costing around $10,000, or nearly $200,000 in today's dollars. More efficient mass production was followed by much lower prices. The Ford Model T, which was produced from 1908 to 1927, at one point sold for less than $260. As prices for personal computers, scanners, printers and other computing devices have fallen, Microsoft has been able to charge high prices for many of its products. For example, the OEM prices for Windows licenses have increased, making this license an ever larger share of the cost of a new computer. Microsoft charges consumers a list price of $109 for an upgrade of Windows 98, which is discounted by retailers to $89 -- but to get this price you must already own Windows 95, so it is like a maintenance fee. The list price for a new version of Windows 98 is $209. Yahoo.com sells Windows 98 at a discount for $181.92, nearly half the price of buying a new low end PC, and more than three times the $49.99 price for the well reviewed BeOS. BeOS is a technologically superior operating system that suffers from a paucity of third party applications, illustrating the significance of the consumer lock-in with Windows. In addition, Microsoft is steadily tightening the conditions on licenses. Many OEM licenses for Windows are tied to a single machine, and cannot be sold or transferred to another machine, even by the original owner. Business users are facing restrictions on the use of concurrent licenses, requiring them to purchase more copies than before. And for most models of PCs that consumers buy, the OEM has to purchase the license, even if the end user doesn't want the software. The "required to buy" Windows problem is a particular galling issue for Linux users who are often actively trying to avoid using Microsoft products. After our own efforts in 1998 to push the major OEMs to give consumers the chance to buy PCs without a Windows license, we have seem some modest improvement, as Dell and other PC manufacturers offer a limited number of PC models with Linux pre- installed. But it is still the case that nearly all of the PC models sold by major OEMs, including Dell, require purchase of a Windows license. A consumer who has been using computers since 1995 may have already purchased a half dozen or more Windows licenses. You might have begun with Windows 95a, but bought Windows 95b so you could better use the large hard drives. And then purchased one or more upgrade computers, with new Windows licenses. Then one has to consider the number of computers that need licenses. Often a person may have separate PCs for work and home, plus a laptop for travel. So it isn't simply the price of Windows, it's the number of licenses for Windows that you end up buying, and how often you have to pay upgrade fees. Microsoft forces upgrades of the operating system by introducing, even between official revisions, significant changes in the OS, including the important support for third party device drivers. Indeed, Windows 98 is already on its "second edition." To get what are essentially bug fixes, Microsoft charges Windows 98 users $19.95, plus shipping and handling, for the second edition of the same product. (Creating yet another opportunity to charge consumers more money so its products will function properly). Any given version of Windows becomes obsolete within a few years, because it will no longer support the latest innovations in hardware. This is intentional, because Microsoft's biggest "competitor" in the OS market is its installed base of users who have already purchased Windows. Microsoft forces consumers to buy what is essentially the same product again and again. In 1997, analysts said that Microsoft had a ninety-five percent share of global revenues for sales of office suites. Microsoft Office has become the global standard for word processing, spreadsheets and other desktop productivity applications. The pricing for MS Office is high. Microsoft's Office 2000 "standard" edition lists for $499, with a "street" price of $399. Even an upgrade to Office 2000 Standard has a list price of $249, and a discounted price of $195 - and this assumes you have already purchased the Microsoft Office before. The "premium" version of MS Office is now priced at $799, or $449 for an upgrade version. These prices are much higher than the prices for Corel's Office 200 suite, which features WordPerfect. For example, the list price for an upgrade of Corel's Standard Office 2000 suite lists for $99, about 40 percent of the Microsoft list price. (And discounts for about $79, about 40 percent of the Microsoft discounted price). Microsoft can command hefty prices for its Office Suite because consumers are often forced to upgrade - simply to read documents they receive from others. Microsoft is constantly changing document formats so that owners of older versions of Microsoft Office cannot read the newer documents. Again, Microsoft's main competitor is its own base of installed users. And, here too Microsoft is a tough adversary, using interoperability and compatibility as weapons, to force upgrades and generate more earnings for Microsoft. Millions of computer users who have perfectly functional copies of Microsoft Office 95 found it impossible to read documents prepared in Office 97, and one anticipates a new round of compatibility issues with Office 2000. Microsoft knows that most consumers have little use for the endless expansion of word processor features, particularly as the world has come to rely upon the much simpler formats for information used in electronic mail. Moreover, the newer versions nearly always contain new bugs, and necessitate more learning, and spark new predatory attacks on non-Microsoft products. Plus, as MS Office and Windows become ever larger, they require huge increases in computing resources. For consumers this often means a costly and time consuming hardware upgrade -- an event highly correlated with losses of user data. But for Microsoft, a hardware upgrade is usually just another source of revenue -- as nearly every new PC ships with a new license for Windows and other Microsoft software. One feature of Microsoft's pricing is the huge difference between its list prices and the prices paid by large buyers, including OEMs, big corporations, governments or universities. Microsoft knows that these large buyers need licenses to Microsoft products, and that they don't want to pay the high list prices. All of these large buyers get Microsoft products at significant discounts. However, for many big users, Microsoft insists on "enterprise" type licenses, which effectively force big organizations to buy licenses for many products for all employees (or students). When Microsoft gives an organization a blanket license for Windows and Office, they make it next to impossible for rivals to compete, since the organization has already paid Microsoft a license fee for all the computer users. Microsoft's pricing strategies are designed to give organizations no realistic options, if they want to avoid sky high list prices for Microsoft Office and Windows. This is also an issue for the OEMs, since the price of software is a significant component of cost in the highly competitive PC market. Microsoft can use the threat of higher prices for OEM licenses -- for Windows or Office -- to discipline OEMs, and reduce opportunities for Microsoft competitors. Non-Pricing Issues While the pricing issues are an important measure of the cost of the Microsoft monopoly, we hear more often from consumers about non- price issues, including many of the non-price issues raised by Judge Jackson. The most common complaint is that Microsoft crashes. "At least once a day," according to many Microsoft Windows users. We also hear countless complaints that Microsoft attacks non-Microsoft products, so they don't work. For example, when Microsoft released its Windows Media player, as a competitor against the RealAudio player, consumers wrote to say it disabled dozens of third party multimedia software programs. Little wonder that people call Microsoft's Internet Explorer, the "Internet Exploder," because it attacks and disables an unpredictable number of non-Microsoft applications. The documents in the Microsoft trial shed new light on the seemingly endless compatibility and interoperability problems with Windows and Microsoft Office. When Microsoft executives proposed making "running any other browser . . . a jolting experience," they were simply adding yet another example of the "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run," corporate legacy. Microsoft could never have succeeded as a software company if its intentions to sabotage third party products were known earlier, before consumers and third party developers invested billions of dollars and countless hours around the Windows platform. Even before you consider issues surrounding deliberate hostility to users, you have the typical problem of a monopoly that can get away with poor products. Because it is so costly and difficult to migrate to a new platform, Microsoft can succeed even when its core products suffer hugely from poor stability, limited interoperabilty, and endless security problems. The fact that millions of users tolerate daily crashes of Windows says volumes about the costs of migration away from Windows. But, as Judge Jackson points out, and as most computer experts know, not all of the quality problems are innocent. In its internal emails and by countless examples, Microsoft has demonstrated that it believes it benefits when consumers cannot make competitor's products work correctly. Microsoft has a range of methods to undermine its competitor's products. When it does not use deliberate sabotage, it can withhold important technical information or refuse to license technology to its competitors, such as when it refused to permit Netscape to distribute a utility to log-on to Internet Service Providers, or when it withholds or unexpectedly changes applications programming interfaces and data file formats. Microsoft can also destroy the quality of rival software by using predatory business practices, such as the enterprise licensing of Windows and MS Office, exclusionary OEM and ISP licensing, or bundling of products with "must have" Windows and Office products. When Netscape cannot effectively distribute its browser through ISP or OEM channels, and when Microsoft's Internet Explorer product is bundled in with Windows and MS Office, Netscape can no longer justify continued R&D in the product. This harms consumers who prefer Netscape. When Microsoft bundles Outlook Express, its personal information manager and email client, into Windows, millions of users who relied upon rival products, like ECCO Pro, were stranded when their products were abandoned by publishers who could not compete with a bundled product having a zero marginal cost to consumers. And there are countless other examples of this in the software market. Despite the colossal sums of money being invested in ecommerce ventures, there is very little investment for desktop productivity software. And while the stock market seems crazy about some Linux stocks, and with all due respect to this gathering, and in light on the fact that we are using Linux extensively in our offices, Linux is still primarily a server technology, without significant penetration in the PC "client" space. For this to change, there will have to be considerable improvements in Linux documentation and in Linux desktop applications. For most PC users, there is a steadily shrinking number of choices for a growing number of important applications. Microsoft is squeezing the life out of markets for word processors, spreadsheets, desktop database software, presentation graphics, personal information managers, email clients and Internet browsers -- the applications that most computer users need. Some observers, such as Robert J. Samuelson, seem to think that Microsoft has provided a public service. By eliminating competitors, Microsoft gives everyone a common standard, and making life simpler has benefits, Samuelson says. I think most people here see the poverty of this analysis. There are, of course, alternative methods of setting standards than relying upon a private monopoly. The Internet is a powerful and relevant example of how a non-monopolistic standard can facilitate enormous innovation. And, as pointed out in Judge Jackson's findings of fact, Microsoft has sought to crush third party technologies, such as Java, that create cross platform standards that Microsoft does not control. The free software movement actively embraces a more open approach to software development. A distribution of Linux isn't the creation of a single firm. It is a collection of hundreds of programs developed by different individuals and groups, that work together. The disclosure of the source code is designed to make it easier to design software programs that work together, to solve user problems. There is competition among distributions of Linux, and users can choose alternative graphical user interfaces, programming tools, utilities and applications. As described in the so called Halloween memorandums, Microsoft's response to the popularity of Linux is to seek ways to cripple interoperability, by deploying proprietary and patented software interfaces. And so far, Microsoft has resisted efforts by OEMs to ship computers ready to dual boot Windows and Linux or Windows and BeOS. There are, of course, huge costs associated with forcing everyone into a software monoculture. Some of the issues concern security. Microsoft's security breach of the week wouldn't be such a huge problem if its software wasn't so ubiquitous. But this is only one of many issues. There are also large costs associated with the disappearance of the products that Microsoft crushes. In the beginning, Microsoft had a tiny presence in desktop applications, and businesses and individuals invested money and time around non-Microsoft products. The forced migration to Microsoft's Johnny-come-lately imitations is costly. Consumers value choice, about a wide range of software characteristics. WordPerfect and Microsoft Word have different approaches to document management. Netscape Navigator, Microsoft Explorer and Opera appeal to differ users. Every software product has its own fans and its own critics. Robert Samuelson seems to think of this as an inefficiency, but the contrary is true. A "one size fits all" world harms consumers, and lowers productivity. Competition among software products leads to innovation and improvements in software quality. This competition moves the industry to solve the problems consumers face, and leads to more productive and reliable products. Indeed, perhaps the most important consideration is that Microsoft is not a leader in product development -- it is an imitator, and this is the most significant harm to consumers -- the stifling of innovations that we never see. As pointed out by Judge Jackson, even Intel, the other half of Wintel, was forced by Microsoft to stop development of a promising new multimedia technology. We recognize that in software markets, there may be cases where the market coalesces around a single product with a large market share. But it is one thing for that decision to be made on the basis of competition for consumer satisfaction, based upon product quality and price, and something else when consumers are forced to pick Microsoft, by an endless array of underhanded, coercive and non- meritorious tactics. Consumers are harmed when there is no real choice, except to succumb to the Microsoft Borg. Thank you. For more information, see http://www.cptech.org/ms Contact Ralph Nader at ralph@essential.org -- James Love / Director, Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org / love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 voice 202.387.8030 / fax 202.234.5176 From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 22:17:16 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from X3066.RESNET.CORNELL.EDU (X3066.RESNET.CORNELL.EDU [128.253.200.125]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA30E21B7C for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 22:17:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (128.253.86.74) by X3066.RESNET.CORNELL.EDU with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 1.3.1); Tue, 21 Dec 1999 22:17:05 -0500 Sender: emb22@X3066.RESNET.CORNELL.EDU Message-ID: <38604292.AF4DF158@pobox.com> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 22:16:34 -0500 From: Eric Bennett Reply-To: ericb@pobox.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; OSF1 V4.0 alpha) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: am-info@lists.essential.org Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems References: <19991221223807.4078E21B1E@venice.essential.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mitch Stone wrote: > I didn't follow this reasoning at first either, but you have explained it > to my satisfaction. The essential question is "what's the market?" If we > start with an unreasonable or vague definition of a product market, we'll > end up with absurd conclusions, such as "all bundling harms all > consumers" and "a Chevy is a ready substitute for a Ford, but a Mac is > not a ready substitute for a PC." If you are talking about the judge's finding about Apple, he made a subtle distinction which, based on your writing above, it appears you may have missed. Suppose we had a single company controlling gasoline, and the government sued this company for monopolistic practices. That company then countered by pointing out the availability of ethanol as a fuel... you can build a car to run on ethanol, but Americans don't have them... they have gas-powered cars. Americans could switch, but the switch is not as simple as switching from gasoline to ethanol. You have to buy a new car first. That's a significant price barrier given that a car costs a lot more than fuel (in the U.S. anyway). The situation in the computer industry is similar. The relevant market is not computer hardware. In that market, Apple hardware competes with PC hardware, but that is not the market that Jackson is looking at. He's looking at the operating system market. And if you are a Windows user, then switching to Mac OS requires you to buy a new computer first. And that computer raises the price of MacOS from, say, $90 to $90 plus the cost of a Mac... $900 if you want to buy a closeout iMac. I think this is why the judge ruled that Mac OS does not offer effective competition in the OS market. It does offer competition for people who are starting from scratch and are buying a complete system. But if you simply want to switch OSes, you have to swallow a huge cost--analagous to buying a car that will run on ethanol--before you can run Mac OS. -- Eric Bennett ( ericb@pobox.com ; http://www.pobox.com/~ericb ) Field of Biochemistry, Cornell University I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "ask". - Bill Gates, in his deposition in US v. Microsoft From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 23:39:10 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 345A221B12 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 23:39:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (ppp-6.essential.org [216.0.125.6]) by milan.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA04305; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 23:39:16 -0500 Sender: jamie@milan.essential.org Message-ID: <38605561.3CF6803F@cptech.org> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 23:36:49 -0500 From: James Love X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Multiple recipients of list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Am-info] Issues with new mailman software For some reason, lots of people are having trouble posting to am-info. I think that some of this comes from people using Linux or another Unix like software. It seems as though the listserve software looks at the machine and the user name, and if that isn't on the list of subscribers, bounces the message, and asks me to approve the post. This is a real pain for me. On solution would be for people to subscribe under differnt names. For example, if my machine address is jl@jamie.essential.org, but my mail is supposed to be love@cptech.org, I would subscribe under both addresses, but set the options for the jl@... address to send no mail. This seems like a drag, and I'm trying to find out why we are having this problem. But I would appreciate it if people who can't post now could do this, so I won't have to montor the bounces. Jamie -- James Love Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org love@cptech.org 202.387.8030; fax 202.234.5176 From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Wed Dec 22 00:17:51 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from X3066.RESNET.CORNELL.EDU (X3066.RESNET.CORNELL.EDU [128.253.200.125]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B6B321B12 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 00:17:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from [128.253.200.125] by X3066.RESNET.CORNELL.EDU with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 1.3.1); Wed, 22 Dec 1999 00:17:47 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: ericb@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <38605561.3CF6803F@cptech.org> References: <38605561.3CF6803F@cptech.org> Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 00:17:37 -0500 To: am-info@lists.essential.org From: "Eric M. Bennett" Subject: Re: [Am-info] Issues with new mailman software Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" James Love wrote: >For some reason, lots of people are having trouble posting to am-info. >I think that some of this comes from people using Linux or another Unix >like software. It seems as though the listserve software looks at the >machine and the user name, and if that isn't on the list of subscribers, >bounces the message, and asks me to approve the post. This is a real >pain for me. > >On solution would be for people to subscribe under differnt names. For >example, if my machine address is jl@jamie.essential.org, but my mail is >supposed to be love@cptech.org, I would subscribe under both addresses, >but set the options for the jl@... address to send no mail. > >This seems like a drag, and I'm trying to find out why we are having >this problem. But I would appreciate it if people who can't post now >could do this, so I won't have to montor the bounces. This is not much of a change from how the old list server worked. Under the old system, mail sent from an address that wasn't subscribed just got eaten up by the system. It never got distributed to the list, and the sender never got an error message. Why not just change the software so that it bounces mail from people who aren't subscribed, sending the errors back to the sender instead of to you? This would be like the old behavior, except people (like me!) wouldn't have to scratch their heads wondering why their message was never sent out to the list. The only problem I have is that I keep typing "am-info@essential.org" instead of remembering that it should be "am-info@lists.essential.org" instead. -- Eric Bennett / ericb@pobox.com / emb22@cornell.edu www.pobox.com/~ericb/ Cornell University, Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology I am not a vegetarian because I love animals; I am a vegetarian because I hate plants. -- A. Whitney Brown From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Wed Dec 22 08:58:06 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from heimdall.sdrc.com (heimdall.sdrc.com [146.122.132.195]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 266BB21B0F for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 08:58:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailhub-cvg.sdrc.com (mailhub-cvg.sdrc.com [146.122.142.31]) by heimdall.sdrc.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA22026 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 08:58:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from rios85.sdrc.com (rios85 [146.122.6.127]) by mailhub-cvg.sdrc.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA06769 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 08:58:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by rios85.sdrc.com id IAA51402; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 08:58:03 -0500 Sender: joe.moore@sdrc.com Message-ID: <3860D8EB.8F1DC2C1@sdrc.com> Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 08:58:03 -0500 From: Joe Moore Organization: No, but I can still find what I'm looking for. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51i [en_US] (X11; U; AIX 4.3) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: am-info@venice.essential.org Subject: Re: [Am-info] Issues with new mailman software References: <38605561.3CF6803F@cptech.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Eric M. Bennett" wrote: > The only problem I have is that I keep typing "am-info@essential.org" > instead of remembering that it should be > "am-info@lists.essential.org" instead. Apparently, you can also send the message to am-info@venice.essential.org (see the headers), but this is probably not a good idea. Jamie, is there someplace you can set the "From" address for the mailman software? --Joe -- IBM's vision is apparently to make IBM hardware "scream with Microsoft software" --The Register, http://www.theregister.co.uk/990927-000003.html I have visions of screaming with (at and about) Microsoft software, too. From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Wed Dec 22 02:29:44 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from athene.jamux.com (athene.jamux.com [209.8.89.251]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FAA421B15 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 02:29:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from athene.jamux.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by athene.jamux.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66DD4481C; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 02:29:43 -0500 (EST) To: James Love Cc: Multiple recipients of list In-reply-to: <38605561.3CF6803F@cptech.org> (James Love; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 23:36:49 -0500) X-URL: http://www.tux.org/~jam/ X-PGP-Fingerprint: 5F05 15CF 05D2 E8D3 E7FA 8C6A 504B EFD5 BFE2 5F2F X-Attribution: jam X-Mailer: MH nmh-0.27 -+- mh-e 5.0.2.1 -+- XEmacs 21.0 "Pyrenean-pre6" Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 02:29:42 -0500 From: "John A. Martin" Message-Id: <19991222072943.66DD4481C@athene.jamux.com> Subject: [Am-info] Re: Issues with new mailman software -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >>>>> "James" == James Love >>>>> "Issues with new mailman software" >>>>> Tue, 21 Dec 1999 23:36:49 -0500 James> For some reason, lots of people are having trouble posting James> to am-info. I think that some of this comes from people James> using Linux or another Unix like software. It seems as James> though the listserve software looks at the machine and the James> user name, and if that isn't on the list of subscribers, James> bounces the message, and asks me to approve the post. This James> is a real pain for me. To suggest that a fundamental problem with Internet email arises from using Linux or other Unix like software seems very strange indeed when one considers that the vast majority of mail software in use on the Internet was developed on and has run for years on Unix platforms and in recent time has been used by vast numbers of folk on Linux in particular. I do not know how any mailing list software would look at "the machine". There are two items that may be useful in determining the sender of a mail message. The first is the message's envelope sender and the second is the header sender. The envelope sender is set by the SMTP protocol and is therefore less easily spoofed than the header sender which is typically taken from the "From:" header field and is easily spoofed by an end-user. Nowadays so many machines are configured wrongly that using the envelope sender when allowing only members to post to a mailing list results in many postings being held for approval even when they appear to come from a list member. In view of this Mailman at lists.essential.org is _supposed_ to be configured at present to use the header sender even though this may allow some spoofed messages to get through. If you have seen Mailman at lists.essential.org actually hold mails that have the same header sender as the list member I would like to see the evidence. What I _have_ seen in the case of mail held for approval on one list is mail with the header "From: love@cptech.org" but "Sender: jl@genoa.essential.org" which overrides the "From:" field when determining the header sender. I am not sure at the moment whether that is the _correct_ behavior but that is what I have seen. James> On solution would be for people to subscribe under differnt James> names. For example, if my machine address is James> jl@jamie.essential.org, but my mail is supposed to be James> love@cptech.org, I would subscribe under both addresses, James> but set the options for the jl@... address to send no mail. First, the _name_ of your machine is jamie.essential.org and it's IP address is 216.0.124.36. Mail end-users are not normally concerned with machine addresses. Second, if you want to receive mail as you would do well to send it as one way or another. In other words, configure your mailer such that your outgoing mail carries the header sender address at which you want to receive replies. This can be done with some form of masquerading either on your local box or by some relay that you pass your mail through. Even simpler is to name your machine something like jamie.cptech.org (though rfc1178 gives several reasons why naming a computer something like jamie.. is a bad idea). Multiple subscription addresses are useful for folk who actually want to post from more than one location. It is an awkward kludge just to compensate for a poorly set up machine or a poorly configured mailer. James> This seems like a drag, and I'm trying to find out why we James> are having this problem. But I would appreciate it if James> people who can't post now could do this, so I won't have to James> montor the bounces. For people who move around using multiple subscriptions perhaps with the "no mail" option is the best solution available at this time. Other possibilities may come later. People who always send mail from the same machine should not need to resort to multiple subscriptions. The same is normally true for folks using different machines within the same domain where user@host.dom.ain is commonly masqueraded as user@dom.ain. Moreover, Mailman at lists.essential.org is configured to consider user@host.dom.ain the same as user@dom.ain. HTH jam -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: By Mailcrypt 3.5.4 and Gnu Privacy Guard iD8DBQE4YH3VUEvv1b/iXy8RArmeAJ9j3NAuSrhF2rW8Qe9GnTZMOxNL8ACfThVl n7TCu4OWMlF1r53PfUErE+0= =n4jp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Wed Dec 22 09:42:17 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7363621B1D for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 09:42:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (jamie.essential.org [216.0.124.36]) by genoa.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA11412; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 09:42:18 -0500 Sender: jl@genoa.essential.org Message-ID: <3860F10F.B8D33616@cptech.org> Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:41:03 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "John A. Martin" Cc: Multiple recipients of list References: <19991222072943.66DD4481C@athene.jamux.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Am-info] Re: Issues with new mailman software "John A. Martin" wrote: > I do not know how any mailing list software would look at "the > machine". There are two items that may be useful in determining the > sender of a mail message. The first is the message's envelope sender > and the second is the header sender. The envelope sender is set by > the SMTP protocol and is therefore less easily spoofed than the header > sender which is typically taken from the "From:" header field and is > easily spoofed by an end-user. Nowadays so many machines are > configured wrongly that using the envelope sender when allowing only > members to post to a mailing list results in many postings being held > for approval even when they appear to come from a list member. In > view of this Mailman at lists.essential.org is _supposed_ to be > configured at present to use the header sender even though this may > allow some spoofed messages to get through. My problem has been that the mailman program seems to be reading the wrong header. I use netscape for my email client, and most people see my outgoing messagae as coming from love@cptech.org. I've used two different smtp options, one from my local linux box, which is being read by mailman as jl@jamie.essential.org, and one from the smtp.essential.org mailer, which is read differently depending upon which Linux box I send from (2 computers at home and one at work, with different user ids). Others on am-info seem to be having the same problem, given the bounced postings I have seen. Jamie -- James Love / Director, Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org / love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 voice 202.387.8030 / fax 202.234.5176 From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Wed Dec 22 09:44:50 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from dfw-smtpout1.email.verio.net (dfw-smtpout1-ext.email.verio.net [129.250.36.41]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 404E521B07 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 09:44:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from [129.250.38.94] (helo=dfw-mailtemp.techops.verio.net) by dfw-smtpout1.email.verio.net with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #7) id 120n0T-0003uD-00 for am-info@lists.essential.org; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 14:44:49 +0000 Received: from [168.143.12.237] (helo=normanmo) by dfw-mailtemp.techops.verio.net with smtp (Exim 3.12 #6) id 120n0X-0000qh-00 for am-info@lists.essential.org; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 14:44:54 +0000 From: "Norm" To: "am-info" Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 09:44:44 -0500 (EST) Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 2.10.1999 for OS/2 Warp 4.00 In-Reply-To: <3860D8EB.8F1DC2C1@sdrc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Am-info] Issues with new mailman software Message-Id: On Wed, 22 Dec 1999 08:58:03 -0500, Joe Moore wrote: >> The only problem I have is that I keep typing "am-info@essential.org" >> instead of remembering that it should be >> "am-info@lists.essential.org" instead. > >Apparently, you can also send the message to >am-info@venice.essential.org (see the headers), but this is probably not >a good idea. > >Jamie, is there someplace you can set the "From" address for the mailman >software? Actually the 'From' field should stay the same as it is (the address of who wrote the email), and the 'To' field should be the list's address. One annoying problem I've noticed since the software change is that now there's two different addresses for the list (am-info@lists.essential.org and am-info@venice.essential.org), and this is making filtering more difficult than it has to be. -- ...Cheers, ...Norm *********************************************** * Brought to you by OS/2 Warp v4.0 and PMMail * * For a copy of my PGP key send me a message * * with "send pub_key" in the subject * *********************************************** From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Wed Dec 22 10:06:51 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from mailhop1.nyroc.rr.com (mailhop1-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.166]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7303221B87 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:06:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailout2.nyroc.rr.com ([24.92.226.165]) by mailhop1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:04:46 -0500 Received: from mail2.nyroc.rr.com ([24.92.226.75]) by mailout2.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 09:58:13 -0500 Received: from rochester.rr.com ([24.93.17.24]) by mail2.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-53939U80000L80000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:04:25 -0500 Received: from soyata.home (IDENT:leisner@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rochester.rr.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA01510; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:06:47 -0500 Message-Id: <199912221506.KAA01510@rochester.rr.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.0 09/18/1999 Reply-To: leisner@rochester.rr.com To: Joe Moore Cc: AM-INFO , leisner@rochester.rr.com Subject: Re: [Am-info] Please give an example of a "suite" In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 21 Dec 1999 13:55:19 EST." <385FCD17.47E24C3C@sdrc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:06:46 -0500 From: "Marty Leisner" Linux is not "sold". It is distributed. There are distribution without ghostview. And there are 4 or 5 flavors of "ghostview" (ghostview, mgv, ggv) Marty Leisner Joe Moore writes on Tue, 21 Dec 1999 13:55:19 EST > > Linux is not sold without ghostview. > From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Wed Dec 22 10:19:46 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB9AA21B15 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:19:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (jamie.essential.org [216.0.124.36]) by genoa.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA11918; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:19:46 -0500 Sender: jl@genoa.essential.org Message-ID: <3860F9D8.64EAB3C1@cptech.org> Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 11:18:32 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Eric M. Bennett" Cc: am-info@venice.essential.org Subject: Re: [Am-info] Issues with new mailman software References: <38605561.3CF6803F@cptech.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Eric M. Bennett" wrote: > Under the old system, mail sent from an address that wasn't > subscribed just got eaten up by the system. It never got distributed > to the list, and the sender never got an error message. > > Why not just change the software so that it bounces mail from people > who aren't subscribed, sending the errors back to the sender instead > of to you? This would be like the old behavior, except people (like > me!) wouldn't have to scratch their heads wondering why their message > was never sent out to the list. The mailman program is configured so bounced am-info messages generate a message to the sender, notifying them that the messages have been held for approval. So you should be getting these messages now. Jamie -- James Love / Director, Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org / love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 voice 202.387.8030 / fax 202.234.5176 From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Wed Dec 22 11:48:31 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from athene.jamux.com (athene.jamux.com [209.8.89.251]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E83321BD9 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 11:48:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from athene.jamux.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by athene.jamux.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2862C481D; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 11:48:27 -0500 (EST) To: James Love Cc: Multiple recipients of list In-reply-to: <3860F10F.B8D33616@cptech.org> (James Love; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:41:03 -0500) X-URL: http://www.tux.org/~jam/ X-PGP-Fingerprint: 5F05 15CF 05D2 E8D3 E7FA 8C6A 504B EFD5 BFE2 5F2F X-Attribution: jam X-Mailer: MH nmh-0.27 -+- mh-e 5.0.2.1 -+- XEmacs 21.0 "Pyrenean-pre6" Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 11:48:25 -0500 From: "John A. Martin" Message-Id: <19991222164828.2862C481D@athene.jamux.com> Subject: [Am-info] Re: Issues with new mailman software -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >>>>> "James" == James Love >>>>> "Re: Issues with new mailman software" >>>>> Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:41:03 -0500 James> "John A. Martin" wrote: >> I do not know how any mailing list software would look at "the >> machine". There are two items that may be useful in >> determining the sender of a mail message. The first is the >> message's envelope sender and the second is the header sender. >> The envelope sender is set by the SMTP protocol and is >> therefore less easily spoofed than the header sender which is >> typically taken from the "From:" header field and is easily >> spoofed by an end-user. Nowadays so many machines are >> configured wrongly that using the envelope sender when allowing >> only members to post to a mailing list results in many postings >> being held for approval even when they appear to come from a >> list member. In view of this Mailman at lists.essential.org is >> _supposed_ to be configured at present to use the header sender >> even though this may allow some spoofed messages to get >> through. James> My problem has been that the mailman program seems to be James> reading the wrong header. Please give me evidence that the wrong header is used. James> I use netscape for my email client, and most people see my James> outgoing messagae as coming from love@cptech.org. I am not responsible for peoples perceptions. The headers I have seen from your machine come with header sender jl@someplace.else.I.froget. That is an incontrovertible fact for the headers I've seen. James> I've used two different smtp options, one from my local James> linux box, which is being read by mailman as James> jl@jamie.essential.org, and one from the smtp.essential.org James> mailer, which is read differently depending upon which James> Linux box I send from (2 computers at home and one at work, James> with different user ids). The differences you note are consistent with the fact that what you see is determined by the configuration of the sending mailers. Bear in mind that when determining whether to accept or hold posted mail for member-only posting Mailman is looking at the header sender as an indication of the origin of the mail. Most end user mail software is interested in the From: header field which is used to determine where to send replies. The From: sender and the header sender are often the same but they are also often different. For example the mail sent by most mailing lists to subscribers will by default attempt to show the original author of the mail in the From: header field (where traditionally replies go by default) and an address belonging to the mailing list as the Sender header field which is interpreted by all as the header sender when present. James> Others on am-info seem to be having the same problem, James> given the bounced postings I have seen. Show me an example. jam -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: By Mailcrypt 3.5.4 and Gnu Privacy Guard iD8DBQE4YQDTUEvv1b/iXy8RArDeAJ45HC+g+OVZ/MDW8kQsvY8/YKQrwwCgiidO GkwEjSqEtyx/THzIoG5oHL0= =KrhT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Wed Dec 22 12:55:50 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from vcnet.com (mail.vcnet.com [209.239.239.15]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 45EA721B5D for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 12:55:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 985 invoked from network); 22 Dec 1999 17:55:48 -0000 Received: from port79.dial.vcnet.com (HELO ?209.239.238.79?) (209.239.238.79) by mail.vcnet.com with SMTP; 22 Dec 1999 17:55:48 -0000 Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 09:55:49 -0800 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Mitch Stone To: "am-info" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-Id: <19991222175550.45EA721B5D@venice.essential.org> --- From a message sent by Eric Bennett on 12/21/99 7:16 PM --- >Mitch Stone wrote: > >> I didn't follow this reasoning at first either, but you have explained it >> to my satisfaction. The essential question is "what's the market?" If we >> start with an unreasonable or vague definition of a product market, we'll >> end up with absurd conclusions, such as "all bundling harms all >> consumers" and "a Chevy is a ready substitute for a Ford, but a Mac is >> not a ready substitute for a PC." > >If you are talking about the judge's finding about Apple, he made a >subtle distinction which, based on your writing above, it appears you >may have missed. > >Suppose we had a single company controlling gasoline, and the government >sued this company for monopolistic practices. That company then >countered by pointing out the availability of ethanol as a fuel... you >can build a car to run on ethanol, but Americans don't have them... they >have gas-powered cars. Americans could switch, but the switch is not as >simple as switching from gasoline to ethanol. You have to buy a new car >first. That's a significant price barrier given that a car costs a lot >more than fuel (in the U.S. anyway). Well I wasn't actually -- I was speaking more generally. For purposes of general discussion, the very fact that a substitute exists does not necessarily cure the monopoly state (so I'm not making a Chicago School type of argument here). Even if ethanol-fueled cars held a 10% market share, and gasoline the other 90%, the sole gasoline producer probably still operates a functional monopoly, including the ability to set prices in the fuel market, to create artificial barriers to entry and take advantage of other predatory methods of maintaining their monopoly (such as demanding kick-backs from car makers or restricting service stations from pumping both gas and ethanol). The single ethanol producer may be able to engage in price-fixing to an extent, but this opportunity will be limited as a consequence of their much smaller share of the fuel market, and it would be suicidal for them play the kind of high-handed games available to the gasoline maker. This is not to say that ethanol does not provide a substitute for gasoline in this example. Obviously, it does. But the gasoline monopoly makes it possible for the entire fuel market to be manipulated by the gasoline manufacturer in anticompetitive ways the minority ethanol maker could not achieve. >The situation in the computer industry is similar. The relevant market >is not computer hardware. In that market, Apple hardware competes with >PC hardware, but that is not the market that Jackson is looking at. >He's looking at the operating system market. And if you are a Windows >user, then switching to Mac OS requires you to buy a new computer >first. And that computer raises the price of MacOS from, say, $90 to >$90 plus the cost of a Mac... $900 if you want to buy a closeout iMac. >I think this is why the judge ruled that Mac OS does not offer effective >competition in the OS market. Yes, it is similar. I believe Judge Jackson did remark that Apple's ability to compete with Windows is and was hampered by Microsoft's lopsided market share, which is not the same as saying that Apple does not compete in Microsoft's market. Apple could at least theoretically compete with Microsoft more effectively if Microsoft did not engage in anticompetitive, monopolistic practices. For example, Apple was foreclosed from an opportunity to license the Mac OS to an existing PC maker by Microsoft's hammerlock on the PC box builders. Instead, they were forced to start from scratch with companies that had never built or sold a computer, and this may have been a factor it the failure of the experiment. Also, Apple scrapped plans to create an Intel-based version of the Mac OS, for what I suspect were similar reasons. If the market is defined too narrowly, the overall dynamics are missed, and this is a highly dynamic market. >It does offer competition for people who are starting from scratch and >are buying a complete system. But if you simply want to switch OSes, >you have to swallow a huge cost--analagous to buying a car that will run >on ethanol--before you can run Mac OS. I'm pretty suspicious of the cost of choice arguments. We replace our cars just about as often as we replace our computers, and cars cost many times more then computers. We don't complain about buying a new car; in fact we seem to take great joy in it, consumer culture that we are. I expect to buy my next car in 2002 or 2003, and by then I hope to have the ability to choose something other then gasoline power. It's a choice I fully expect to pay for, because all choices have costs. Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Wed Dec 22 13:06:06 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from vcnet.com (mail.vcnet.com [209.239.239.15]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 24A5721B5D for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 13:06:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 7687 invoked from network); 22 Dec 1999 18:06:05 -0000 Received: from port79.dial.vcnet.com (HELO ?209.239.238.79?) (209.239.238.79) by mail.vcnet.com with SMTP; 22 Dec 1999 18:06:05 -0000 Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:06:06 -0800 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Mitch Stone To: "am-info" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-Id: <19991222180606.24A5721B5D@venice.essential.org> Subject: [Am-info] Make your own verdict This is amusing: http://brunching.com/toys/toy-findingsofblank.html Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Wed Dec 22 13:06:07 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from vcnet.com (mail.vcnet.com [209.239.239.15]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 262FB21B87 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 13:06:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 7690 invoked from network); 22 Dec 1999 18:06:06 -0000 Received: from port79.dial.vcnet.com (HELO ?209.239.238.79?) (209.239.238.79) by mail.vcnet.com with SMTP; 22 Dec 1999 18:06:06 -0000 Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:06:07 -0800 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Mitch Stone To: "am-info" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-Id: <19991222180607.262FB21B87@venice.essential.org> Subject: [Am-info] Judge rejects Microsoft's objection to Lessig Report: Judge rejects Microsoft's objection to Lessig By Bloomberg News Special to CNET News.com December 21, 1999, 4:25 a.m. PT URL: http://news.cnet.com/category/0-1003-200-1501857.html WASHINGTON--Microsoft's latest objection to a Harvard Law School professor's testimony in its antitrust case was rejected by U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, who said he can find no evidence that the Internet expert is biased against the software maker, according to reports. The company excerpted a brief radio interview in which Lawrence Lessig is quoted as saying Microsoft's control of the "architecture of cyberspace" is a "threat to innovation," in its second filing protesting Lessig's participation in the case. Microsoft also complained that Lessig was associated with an advisory group connected to Red Hat, which promotes the Linux operating system, a competitor to Microsoft's dominant Windows software in some markets, the Wall Street Journal reported. Microsoft and its Expedia online travel service yesterday filed to dismiss a patent infringement lawsuit filed by rival Priceline.com, arguing that an earlier suit against Priceline.com must be settled before the newer suit can proceed. Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Wed Dec 22 12:21:26 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from Kitten.mcs.net (Kitten.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E4E221BE8 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 12:21:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from mcs.com (IDENT:scohen@stevecoh.pr.mcs.net [204.95.62.224]) by Kitten.mcs.net (8.9.3/8.8.2) with ESMTP id LAA76780; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 11:21:06 -0600 (CST) Sender: scohen@Mcs.Net Message-ID: <38610821.1406F76D@mcs.com> Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 11:19:29 -0600 From: Steve Cohen X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Love Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: [Am-info] Issues with new mailman software References: <38605561.3CF6803F@cptech.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit James Love wrote: > > For some reason, lots of people are having trouble posting to am-info. > I think that some of this comes from people using Linux or another Unix > like software. It seems as though the listserve software looks at the > machine and the user name, and if that isn't on the list of subscribers, > bounces the message, and asks me to approve the post. This is a real > pain for me. > > On solution would be for people to subscribe under differnt names. For > example, if my machine address is jl@jamie.essential.org, but my mail is > supposed to be love@cptech.org, I would subscribe under both addresses, > but set the options for the jl@... address to send no mail. > > This seems like a drag, and I'm trying to find out why we are having > this problem. But I would appreciate it if people who can't post now > could do this, so I won't have to montor the bounces. > > Jamie > > -- > James Love > Consumer Project on Technology > http://www.cptech.org > love@cptech.org > 202.387.8030; fax 202.234.5176 > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info I have not had any trouble posting from Linux. And like you, I am using Netscape as my mail client. You do have to get your Netscape setting correct. What would be a more interesting test would be to boot the Win95 portion of my dual boot and see if my postings from there would work. But previously, I could post from either place. I suppose Netscape versions might be critical. Mine is 4.61, but frankly, it seems to me that this feature of Netscape hasn't changed much through all the revisions I've seen. From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Wed Dec 22 12:44:57 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from Kitten.mcs.net (Kitten.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 599D421B07 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 12:44:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from mcs.com (IDENT:scohen@stevecoh.pr.mcs.net [204.95.62.224]) by Kitten.mcs.net (8.9.3/8.8.2) with ESMTP id LAA83560; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 11:44:55 -0600 (CST) Sender: scohen@Mcs.Net Message-ID: <38610DB6.5206244D@mcs.com> Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 11:43:18 -0600 From: Steve Cohen X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Eric M. Bennett" Cc: am-info@venice.essential.org Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems References: <19991221035050.72B5221B1A@venice.essential.org> <385F8408.9D2CE452@mcs.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Eric M. Bennett" wrote: > > Steve Cohen wrote: > > > > >Come on, Eric, as a chemist, you're putting much too fine a point on it. > >True, when my wife refuses to take ibuprofen she could care less about > >the chemical structure, but the side-effects it has on her stomach are > >very much to be avoided. But she'll damned well read the label on any > >pain reliever to see that it contains acetominophen and not ibuprofen. > > > >And then there's aspirin. Some people take it not as a painkiller but > >to reduce the risk of heart attacks. > > > >Admit it, this is a poor example. > > Well, I think we've still demonstrated what I oringally wanted to do, > which is offer a reminder that you have to be careful defining the > markets. Even with these refinements, we're at the point of saying > that people want a painkiller without side effects. Which is still > different than saying they want "aspirin". > > Okay... Point taken. From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Wed Dec 22 13:55:30 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFFB721BE4 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 13:55:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (jamie.essential.org [216.0.124.36]) by genoa.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA15264; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 13:55:21 -0500 Sender: jl@genoa.essential.org Message-ID: <38612C5E.FA671273@cptech.org> Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 14:54:06 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Cohen Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: [Am-info] Issues with new mailman software References: <38605561.3CF6803F@cptech.org> <38610821.1406F76D@mcs.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Steve Cohen wrote: > I have not had any trouble posting from Linux. And like you, I am using > Netscape as my mail client. You do have to get your Netscape setting > correct. What would be a more interesting test would be to boot the > Win95 portion of my dual boot and see if my postings from there would > work. But previously, I could post from either place. I suppose > Netscape versions might be critical. Mine is 4.61, but frankly, it > seems to me that this feature of Netscape hasn't changed much through > all the revisions I've seen. You are having tons of problems. All of your posts have bounced, and required manual authorization from me. Jamie -- James Love / Director, Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org / love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 voice 202.387.8030 / fax 202.234.5176 From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Wed Dec 22 13:57:18 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from X3066.RESNET.CORNELL.EDU (X3066.RESNET.CORNELL.EDU [128.253.200.125]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 549B921B56 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 13:57:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (128.253.86.74) by X3066.RESNET.CORNELL.EDU with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 1.3.1); Wed, 22 Dec 1999 13:57:17 -0500 Sender: emb22@X3066.RESNET.CORNELL.EDU Message-ID: <38611EE9.18507272@pobox.com> Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 13:56:41 -0500 From: Eric Bennett Reply-To: ericb@pobox.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; OSF1 V4.0 alpha) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: am-info@lists.essential.org Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems References: <19991222175550.45EA721B5D@venice.essential.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mitch Stone wrote: > Yes, it is similar. I believe Judge Jackson did remark that Apple's > ability to compete with Windows is and was hampered by Microsoft's > lopsided market share, which is not the same as saying that Apple does > not compete in Microsoft's market. Apple could at least theoretically > compete with Microsoft more effectively if Microsoft did not engage in > anticompetitive, monopolistic practices. For example, Apple was > foreclosed from an opportunity to license the Mac OS to an existing PC > maker by Microsoft's hammerlock on the PC box builders. Instead, they > were forced to start from scratch with companies that had never built or > sold a computer, and this may have been a factor it the failure of the > experiment. What are your sources for this information? The rumors I recall at the time were that Gateway in particular was *very* interested in becoming a Mac clone vendor, but that Apple turned them down because it feared a big-name vendor like Gateway would instantly steal too much of Apple's market share. Quite the contrary to what you assume, everything I've heard was that Apple had the opportunity to license with PC box makers and didn't take it. > I'm pretty suspicious of the cost of choice arguments. We replace our > cars just about as often as we replace our computers, and cars cost many > times more then computers. But I doubt you also replace all your software, which is another siginficant cost. Who wants to pay for a second copy of Microsoft Office when you buy a new Mac and can't run the PC version anymore? The point is, when you switch OSes, you incur a lot of extra costs beyond the cost of the OS, and that does put up a barrier. For Mac OS, new hardware is a signficant cost. Note that I don't fully agree with Jackson here. The empirical evidence from a few years ago suggests that a lot of companies were perfectly happy to bear the expense of replacing all of their Apple hardware with PCs, so presumably a similar number would be willing to pay the money to go in the opposite direction if a convincing case were made for doing it. -- Eric Bennett ( ericb@pobox.com ; http://www.pobox.com/~ericb ) Field of Biochemistry, Cornell University I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "ask". - Bill Gates, in his deposition in US v. Microsoft From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Wed Dec 22 16:01:41 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from prserv.net (out1.prserv.net [165.87.194.252]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA32621B11 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 16:01:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp1.attglobal.net ([32.101.180.41]) by prserv.net (out1) with SMTP id <1999122221013825202i1sire>; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 21:01:39 +0000 From: "Ethical at One of One dot Net" Reply-To: Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 13:01:41 -0800 To: Mitch Stone , "am-info" In-Reply-To: <19991222180606.24A5721B5D@venice.essential.org> Subject: Re: [Am-info] Make your own verdict X-Mailer: MR/2 Internet Cruiser Edition for OS/2 v1.60 b60 Message-Id: <19991222210140.BA32621B11@venice.essential.org> In <19991222180606.24A5721B5D@venice.essential.org>, on 12/22/99 at 10:06 AM, Mitch Stone said: |This is amusing: |http://brunching.com/toys/toy-findingsofblank.html The problem is, I need AltaVist's Beabelfish to translate: Most harmful of all is the message that Microsoft's children have conveyed to every flood victim with the potential to slide in the earthquake industry. Through its conduct toward Netscape, Nestle, Compaq, Rubbermaid, and others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense testicles to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft's putrid products. Microsoft's past success in hurting such tomatos and stifling innovation deters investment in technologies and feathers that exhibit the potential to thrust Microsoft. The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit pickles never occur for the sole reason that they do not polish with Microsoft's phlegm. -- ----------------------------------------------------------- "Ethical at One of One dot Net" [T. Guilbert] sending email to you from lovely Portland, Oregon, USofA ----------------------------------------------------------- From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Wed Dec 22 17:06:29 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from radagast.wizard.net (radagast.wizard.net [206.161.15.5]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2F9321B11 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 17:06:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from spocko (tc4-s22.wizard.net [209.8.153.23]) by radagast.wizard.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA31992 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 17:06:42 -0500 Message-ID: <007601bf4cc9$2f6997d0$179908d1@wizard.net> From: "Nathan Dickerson" To: Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 16:53:16 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Subject: [Am-info] Re: API witholding? >B. Withholding Crucial Technical Information There is newer evidence of this I thought I would detail on my site -- http://www.agentstation.com/pms/perma.htm ~ paragraph 3. Apparently MS is also telling people support solutions and bug/Y2K issues without informing the general public at the same time or even shortly thereafter. It's quite interesting considering that it's such a tiny point on the whole page. From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Wed Dec 22 17:06:30 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from radagast.wizard.net (radagast.wizard.net [206.161.15.5]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6837221B23 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 17:06:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from spocko (tc4-s22.wizard.net [209.8.153.23]) by radagast.wizard.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA31999 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 17:06:43 -0500 Message-ID: <007701bf4cc9$30720720$179908d1@wizard.net> From: "Nathan Dickerson" To: Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 17:07:56 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Subject: [Am-info] ms brainwashing & sweatshop machines. Some of you may have missed it: http://www.agentstation.com/pms/abuse.htm MS has a child work force. That's why it's so popular these days. For example, MS got Active Desktop and Active Channel names from a kiddie contest (digital camera bribes to suck out name ideas). And from Part I on the site--- [from Microsoft's Brian Hall]: "Hey guys. Harry Goodwin gave me your names as students in clubIE. I'm a product manager who is setting up our educational marketing plan. Few questions for you: * What school are you at, how big, what estimate OS percentages are (i.e. x% PC-Win95/NT, y% PC -Win3.x, u% mac, v% UNIX)? * What is your school's standard browser? how is it distributed to all students? Is IE supported (and what is your support structure)? * Same as above for email. also, let me know if you know anything more that might help me out as far as increasing IE share goes. Please forward these questions and my address on to any other students you know in ClubIE or others who would help." And yes, MVPs are MS employees. I think I left out the fact that if you stop being an active MS supporter, MS will give you multiple evening phone calls even waking you up in order to get you back to work. Anyway, secret APIs, similarities with the perma-temp cases, negative social influences, admissions that bundling was wrong and unbundling is possible and MS statements are trash-- are all revealed on the site. It takes a while to get through it all but there are interesting tidbits. I'll post 1 or 2 more messages here about it. From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Wed Dec 22 17:06:32 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from radagast.wizard.net (radagast.wizard.net [206.161.15.5]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E809921B9B for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 17:06:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from spocko (tc4-s22.wizard.net [209.8.153.23]) by radagast.wizard.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA32003 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 17:06:45 -0500 Message-ID: <007801bf4cc9$3147f4c0$179908d1@wizard.net> From: "Nathan Dickerson" To: Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 17:08:35 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Subject: [Am-info] from the horses' mouths A top MS MVP said on their MVP newsgroups referring to the MS Innovate/Freedom page, "...god-awful propaganda page the MS has the temerity to call a news page about its pending lawsuit with the government. That page is as slanted and inaccurate as any piece of garbage I've ever read." He goes on to say, "I've felt for the longest time that the method chosen for bundling IE was wrong and that it is possible to remove it from the OS because the OS originally shipped without that piece. Simple logic, simple solution, extremely dangerous opinion. Now, I don't feel the slightest reason to be ashamed of the opinion..." I bet Mettler will like that one . This is from Part 3, Fraud & Brainwashing. http://www.agentstation.com/pms/fraudbrain.htm From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Wed Dec 22 17:13:24 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from vcnet.com (mail.vcnet.com [209.239.239.15]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2009921B23 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 17:13:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 35926 invoked from network); 22 Dec 1999 22:13:23 -0000 Received: from port120.dial.vcnet.com (HELO ?209.239.238.120?) (209.239.238.120) by mail.vcnet.com with SMTP; 22 Dec 1999 22:13:23 -0000 Subject: Re: [Am-info] Make your own verdict Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 14:13:24 -0800 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Mitch Stone To: "am-info" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-Id: <19991222221324.2009921B23@venice.essential.org> --- From a message sent by Ethical at One of One dot Net on 12/22/99 1:01 PM --- >In <19991222180606.24A5721B5D@venice.essential.org>, on 12/22/99 at >10:06 AM, > Mitch Stone said: > >|This is amusing: > >|http://brunching.com/toys/toy-findingsofblank.html > >The problem is, I need AltaVist's Beabelfish to translate: > > Most harmful of all is the message that Microsoft's children have >conveyed to every flood victim with the potential to slide in the >earthquake industry. Through its conduct toward Netscape, Nestle, >Compaq, Rubbermaid, and others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it >will use its prodigious market power and immense testicles to harm any >firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify >competition against one of Microsoft's putrid products. Microsoft's >past success in hurting such tomatos and stifling innovation deters >investment in technologies and feathers that exhibit the potential to >thrust Microsoft. The ultimate result is that some innovations that >would truly benefit pickles never occur for the sole reason that they >do not polish with Microsoft's phlegm. > > I will not spoil the fun by noting which of the above nouns, verbs and adjectives were contributed by you. Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Wed Dec 22 17:13:25 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from vcnet.com (mail.vcnet.com [209.239.239.15]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 273F521B11 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 17:13:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 35932 invoked from network); 22 Dec 1999 22:13:24 -0000 Received: from port120.dial.vcnet.com (HELO ?209.239.238.120?) (209.239.238.120) by mail.vcnet.com with SMTP; 22 Dec 1999 22:13:24 -0000 Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 14:13:25 -0800 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Mitch Stone To: "am-info" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-Id: <19991222221325.273F521B11@venice.essential.org> --- From a message sent by Eric Bennett on 12/22/99 10:56 AM --- >Mitch Stone wrote: > >> Yes, it is similar. I believe Judge Jackson did remark that Apple's >> ability to compete with Windows is and was hampered by Microsoft's >> lopsided market share, which is not the same as saying that Apple does >> not compete in Microsoft's market. Apple could at least theoretically >> compete with Microsoft more effectively if Microsoft did not engage in >> anticompetitive, monopolistic practices. For example, Apple was >> foreclosed from an opportunity to license the Mac OS to an existing PC >> maker by Microsoft's hammerlock on the PC box builders. Instead, they >> were forced to start from scratch with companies that had never built or >> sold a computer, and this may have been a factor it the failure of the >> experiment. > >What are your sources for this information? The rumors I recall at the >time were >that Gateway in particular was *very* interested in becoming a Mac clone >vendor, but that Apple turned them down because it feared a big-name >vendor like Gateway would instantly steal too much of Apple's market >share. Quite the contrary to what you assume, everything I've heard was >that Apple had the opportunity to license with PC box makers and didn't >take it. I don't remember hearing the Gateway rumor (what are _your_ sources?), and really we had very little solid information about how the clone licensing program was formulated anyway. But I do recall that several cloning rumors floated around well before Motorola, UMAX and PCC came on the scene, and they all involved established PC box builders. None of these companies ever risked crossing Microsoft before, so I don't think my theory about why this never came to pass is a great leap of logic. >> I'm pretty suspicious of the cost of choice arguments. We replace our >> cars just about as often as we replace our computers, and cars cost many >> times more then computers. > >But I doubt you also replace all your software, which is another >siginficant cost. Who wants to pay for a second copy of Microsoft >Office when you buy a new Mac and can't run the PC version anymore? The >point is, when you switch OSes, you incur a lot of extra costs beyond >the cost of the OS, and that does put up a barrier. For Mac OS, new >hardware is a signficant cost. > >Note that I don't fully agree with Jackson here. The empirical evidence >from a few years ago suggests that a lot of companies were perfectly >happy to bear the expense of replacing all of their Apple hardware with >PCs, so presumably a similar number would be willing to pay the money to >go in the opposite direction if a convincing case were made for doing >it. All decisions carry associated costs. Even doing nothing incurs a cost, though it might be more difficult to calculate. In the case of computer hardware, which is all but obsolete after three or four years, and software which gets replaced (or upgraded) almost annually, the cost of replacement of one platform with another could be negligible -- or even a net positive if the replacement decision is a sound one. A potentially important point missed by Judge Jackson? Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Wed Dec 22 17:32:07 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from X3066.RESNET.CORNELL.EDU (X3066.RESNET.CORNELL.EDU [128.253.200.125]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E366921B6D for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 17:32:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (128.253.86.74) by X3066.RESNET.CORNELL.EDU with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 1.3.1); Wed, 22 Dec 1999 17:32:05 -0500 Sender: emb22@X3066.RESNET.CORNELL.EDU Message-ID: <38615147.CC8957F@pobox.com> Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 17:31:35 -0500 From: Eric Bennett Reply-To: ericb@pobox.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; OSF1 V4.0 alpha) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: am-info@lists.essential.org Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems References: <19991222221325.273F521B11@venice.essential.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mitch Stone wrote: > I don't remember hearing the Gateway rumor (what are _your_ sources?), > and really we had very little solid information about how the clone > licensing program was formulated anyway. But I do recall that several > cloning rumors floated around well before Motorola, UMAX and PCC came on > the scene, and they all involved established PC box builders. None of > these companies ever risked crossing Microsoft before, so I don't think > my theory about why this never came to pass is a great leap of logic. Well then, it's your memory against mine, since I don't recall where I read this. > All decisions carry associated costs. Even doing nothing incurs a cost, > though it might be more difficult to calculate. In the case of computer > hardware, which is all but obsolete after three or four years, and > software which gets replaced (or upgraded) almost annually, the cost of > replacement of one platform with another could be negligible -- or even a > net positive if the replacement decision is a sound one. A potentially > important point missed by Judge Jackson? I'm not so sure. Our secretary was using a Mac IIsi until this fall. We still use a Quadra 630 for document scanning. And we spend tens of thousands on Unix workstations so it's not like we can't afford to replace these things. We just don't bother, because they still do the jobs they are supposed to do. High-end users may replace hardware frequently, but I'm not so convinced the rest of the world does. As for software, it takes Microsoft several years to come out with new versions of Office, so even if we wanted to immediately buy the latest Office when it came out it would only be every three years or so. Some of the software we use hasn't been updated since 1991. I doubt that this is typical, but I'm also suspicious of suggestions that users are always buying the latest versions. Unfortunately I don't know where we can get any numbers to check these assumptions. Even buying upgrades is a lot cheaper than buying all new versions (except in the rare cases where "crossgrades" are available). -- Eric Bennett ( ericb@pobox.com ; http://www.pobox.com/~ericb ) Field of Biochemistry, Cornell University I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "ask". - Bill Gates, in his deposition in US v. Microsoft From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Wed Dec 22 22:24:37 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from mail.atlnet.com (denali.atlnet.com [208.148.155.187]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2266C21C4B for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 22:24:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from denali.atlnet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by denali (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA19749; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 19:51:35 -0500 Sender: esoteric@mail.atlnet.com Message-ID: <38617217.A510A22D@denali.atlnet.com> Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 19:51:35 -0500 From: Wandered Inn Organization: Nocturnal Aviation Software Design X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.10 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Love Cc: Steve Cohen , Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: [Am-info] Issues with new mailman software References: <38605561.3CF6803F@cptech.org> <38610821.1406F76D@mcs.com> <38612C5E.FA671273@cptech.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit James Love wrote: > > Steve Cohen wrote: > > I have not had any trouble posting from Linux. And like you, I am using > > Netscape as my mail client. You do have to get your Netscape setting > > correct. What would be a more interesting test would be to boot the > > Win95 portion of my dual boot and see if my postings from there would > > work. But previously, I could post from either place. I suppose > > Netscape versions might be critical. Mine is 4.61, but frankly, it > > seems to me that this feature of Netscape hasn't changed much through > > all the revisions I've seen. > > You are having tons of problems. All of your posts have bounced, and > required manual authorization from me. Jamie, I don't know what the problem is, but I've been using mail lists for a good ten years, always from Unix clients. Now, I don't see any of my posts making it to the list. I'm also using Netscape and Linux. Personally, I think the problem is with the package and not the posters. > > Jamie > > -- > James Love / Director, Consumer Project on Technology > http://www.cptech.org / love@cptech.org > P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 > voice 202.387.8030 / fax 202.234.5176 > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info -- Until later: Geoffrey esoteric@denali.atlnet.com It should be illegal to yell "Y2K" in a crowded economy. -- Larry Wall, creator of the programming language Perl From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Wed Dec 22 22:24:39 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from mail.atlnet.com (denali.atlnet.com [208.148.155.187]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0042C21C54 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 22:24:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from denali.atlnet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by denali (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA08032; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 09:04:36 -0500 Sender: esoteric@mail.atlnet.com Message-ID: <3860DA74.61A4F1A4@denali.atlnet.com> Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 09:04:36 -0500 From: Wandered Inn Organization: Nocturnal Aviation Software Design X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.10 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joe Moore Cc: am-info@venice.essential.org Subject: Re: [Am-info] Issues with new mailman software References: <38605561.3CF6803F@cptech.org> <3860D8EB.8F1DC2C1@sdrc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Joe Moore wrote: > > "Eric M. Bennett" wrote: > > > The only problem I have is that I keep typing "am-info@essential.org" > > instead of remembering that it should be > > "am-info@lists.essential.org" instead. > > Apparently, you can also send the message to > am-info@venice.essential.org (see the headers), but this is probably not > a good idea. > > Jamie, is there someplace you can set the "From" address for the mailman > software? Well, mine was working, but none of my recent posts have made it and I suspect the majority of folks are having the same problem. I'm copying you Joe, in this one as I doubt it will make it to the list. If it does, let me know since I'm getting very few to the list. > > --Joe > > -- > IBM's vision is apparently to make IBM hardware "scream with Microsoft > software" --The Register, > http://www.theregister.co.uk/990927-000003.html > > I have visions of screaming with (at and about) Microsoft software, too. > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info -- Until later: Geoffrey esoteric@denali.atlnet.com It should be illegal to yell "Y2K" in a crowded economy. -- Larry Wall, creator of the programming language Perl From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Wed Dec 22 22:24:42 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from mail.atlnet.com (denali.atlnet.com [208.148.155.187]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2266621C54 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 22:24:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from denali.atlnet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by denali (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA28943 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 21:24:21 -0500 Sender: esoteric@mail.atlnet.com Message-ID: <38603655.559FB794@denali.atlnet.com> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 21:24:21 -0500 From: Wandered Inn Organization: Nocturnal Aviation Software Design X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.10 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Appraising Microsoft Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Am-info] Counting Just thought I'd share. I've been keeping track for a while now. Of the last 76 messages to the list, 26 belong to Mettler. EVERY SINGLE ONE of Mettler's messages were on the bundling subject. I'm not going to count the number of responses that were in the same category. Folks, 1/3 of this list has been buried in this subject by this one person. How about we give up trying to convince Mettler regarding any issues on bundling. Maybe he will quit bringing it up. Outside of a handful of posts, I've gotten little use of the list lately. I don't know why Mettler suddenly has so much time on his hands, but he's destroyed the purpose of this list. Leave him alone and maybe he'll change his subject. -- Until later: Geoffrey esoteric@denali.atlnet.com It should be illegal to yell "Y2K" in a crowded economy. -- Larry Wall, creator of the programming language Perl From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Wed Dec 22 22:24:43 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from mail.atlnet.com (denali.atlnet.com [208.148.155.187]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48AF221C88 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 22:24:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from denali.atlnet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by denali (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA30905 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 07:22:02 -0500 Sender: esoteric@mail.atlnet.com Message-ID: <385F70EA.7B017DB0@denali.atlnet.com> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 07:22:02 -0500 From: Wandered Inn Organization: Nocturnal Aviation Software Design X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.10 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: am-info Subject: Re: [Am-info] Microsoft and Simon References: <385F6FD6.A712219D@denali.atlnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I can't help but wonder if our friend Simon who is subscribed to the list, jumped on this one, only to be disappointed. :) An afterthought, only once I caught my own posting. -- Until later: Geoffrey esoteric@denali.atlnet.com It should be illegal to yell "Y2K" in a crowded economy. -- Larry Wall, creator of the programming language Perl From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Thu Dec 23 00:21:28 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from mail.rdc1.az.home.com (ha1.rdc1.az.home.com [24.1.240.66]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7764C21B20 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 00:21:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ehome.inhouse ([24.9.114.169]) by mail.rdc1.az.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <19991223052127.QFAZ2534.mail.rdc1.az.home.com@ehome.inhouse>; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 21:21:27 -0800 From: Eric Lee Green Organization: Myself @ Home To: Mitch Stone , "am-info" Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Corel Lawsuit Challenges U.S. Government Contract Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 21:50:11 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <19991221170424.5B5DA21BD3@venice.essential.org> In-Reply-To: <19991221170424.5B5DA21BD3@venice.essential.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <99122222243200.00805@ehome.inhouse> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Tue, 21 Dec 1999, Mitch Stone wrote: > --- From a message sent by Norm on 12/21/99 3:01 AM --- > >>I recently received a Request for Proposal from a California state agency > >>specifically stipulating that all of the contractor's work be prepared > >>and presented in Microsoft Word for Windows -- not even Word for the > >>Macintosh (assuming we owned that) is allowed, apparently. So I guess we > >>won't be proposing. We see this in federal contract specifications as > >>well. > paper stock specification. But nobody seems to bat an eyelash with a > specification to use Microsoft Word for Windows. And filing a formal > complaint would only brand one as a crank, effectively disqualifying them > from any further contracting opportunities with this agency. It's a > lose-lose proposition. Well, if it were a contract I wanted, I'd buy a copy of Word for Windows. But there's other more blatant things where it's very definitely the right thing to do to raise hell. For example, a couple of years ago I worked for a vendor of school administration systems. We had converted from SCO Unix to Linux because it allowed us to underbid NT-based systems while making more profit. We had approximately 40% of the school districts in the state of Louisiana as clients and were looking to expand our presence in Mississippi. Well, the State of Mississippi issued a bid spec for a school administration system for every school district central office. The original bid spec stated that it would run under Windows 95 or Windows NT connected to a Windows NT server (this was later changed to a Novell server after they checked with various people and discovered that Windows NT was not centrally managable in the same way as Novell w/NDS was -- this was before NDS for NT or ActiveDirectory, obviously). Now, we had a bat's chance in hell of getting this contract, but we put in the bid anyhow, and guess what? We were the low bid, and furthermore, offered free copies of our school administration program to the school districts for installation at the site level (but not free support, grin). And guess what? We did not get chosen (duh) because we did not do Windows. My boss had been seeing red all this time, knowing that this was going to happen from the beginning because the bid spec had been rigged for a vendor from Kentucky (according to our Jackson agent -- ironically, that vendor pulled out after the requirement of a local Mississippi office was added to the bid spec, and the contract went to another vendor altogether), so he raised hell. Every school board member, school district technology superintendent, and school superintendent in the state of Mississippi was contacted, every state legislator, various newspapers... according to our Jackson agent, those poor guys at the department of education were getting slammed by state legislators calling them asking them why the hell they were wasting state money instead of going with the low bid. I said to my boss, "Man, they REALLY aren't going to buy our software now!" What he said was this: "I wasn't going to get this contract anyhow. But in five years, all those bureaucrats in the Department of Education will have moved on to private business, and all the top guys will be out of office. And I'll still be here. When the next bid comes up, everybody will remember my name, but they won't remember why." In short, his point was that the institutional memory was short-term in state agencies, while he was there for the long term. And they couldn't dismiss him as a flake because he had 40% of the school districts in Louisiana. The long term effect was name recognition, under the premise that "there's no such thing as bad publicity", plus the fact that the next time such a bid came up, they'd make darned sure to be more careful about platform restrictions. BTW, this wasn't a new tactic for him. The state of Louisiana had tried to standardize on a package out of New Jersey when he was just starting out and only had a few local districts in North Louisiana. He used the same tactic, but with the twist that he was an in-state firm that was about to be put out of business because of the state signing an exclusive contract with an out-of-state firm. Even the newspapers jumped into the fray, saying that it was ridiculous to be standardizing on an out-of-state firm and putting an in-state firm out of business when it was perfectly reasonable to set an EDI data transmission standard and allow districts to use any package they darned well pleased. The net result was that he didn't get the contract -- but neither did anybody else (they used the EDI solution instead). Last time I talked to him, he said that he is now the de-facto state standard for Louisiana -- everybody else is pulling out because it's not worth modifying their software to generate those EDI records for just a few districts' use. So in the long run, he won -- though it took five years. So yes, it IS possible to fight City Hall, if you have balls enough and are willing to raise enough hell. It didn't hurt that he was wearing tailored suits, a Rolex watch, and driving a Caddy lookin' like a Texas millionaire in his rattlesnake boots while he was button-holing state legislators and various state officials either... it's hard to label somebody a crank when he's wearing enough gold to buy your house and car with some left over (grin). It's sort of like, "if you're poor, you're a crank. But if you're rich, you're merely eccentric." He wasn't REALLY rich (how many small businessmen are?), but he knew what props he needed to get the effect he needed, and he got them and used them to the hilt. Sadly enough, politicians are a lot more willing to listen if they think you're rich :-(. -- Eric Lee Green e_l_green@hotmail.com http://members.tripod.com/e_l_green/ From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Thu Dec 23 00:39:41 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from hotmail.com (oe51.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.88]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3E5EB21B49 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 00:39:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 27281 invoked by uid 65534); 23 Dec 1999 05:39:41 -0000 Message-ID: <19991223053941.27280.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.244.109.184] From: "Simon Cooke" To: "Wandered Inn" , "am-info" References: <385F6FD6.A712219D@denali.atlnet.com> <385F70EA.7B017DB0@denali.atlnet.com> Subject: Re: [Am-info] Microsoft and Simon Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 21:39:43 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 From: "Wandered Inn" > I can't help but wonder if our friend Simon who is subscribed to the > list, jumped on this one, only to be disappointed. :) An afterthought, > only once I caught my own posting. *grins* granted, it's an unusual enough name for me to jump to that conclusion :) ... however, not all of the subject was visible on my screen when I read it - so I didn't even see the Simon bit :) Just "Microsoft and ..." Though one friend of mine does have a three year old son who thinks that they named the local mall after me... Simon From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Thu Dec 23 00:49:57 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from hotmail.com (oe47.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.84]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7686A21BEC for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 00:49:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 82805 invoked by uid 65534); 23 Dec 1999 05:49:57 -0000 Message-ID: <19991223054957.82804.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.244.109.184] From: "Simon Cooke" To: References: <007701bf4cc9$30720720$179908d1@wizard.net> Subject: Re: [Am-info] ms brainwashing & sweatshop machines. Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 21:50:01 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 From: "Nathan Dickerson" > Some of you may have missed it: http://www.agentstation.com/pms/abuse.htm > > MS has a child work force. That's why it's so popular these days. Thanks for that -- it was a rather hilarious read. Simon From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Thu Dec 23 00:59:33 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from hotmail.com (oe18.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.122]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 402D921BEC for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 00:59:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 41331 invoked by uid 65534); 23 Dec 1999 05:59:33 -0000 Message-ID: <19991223055933.41330.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.244.109.184] From: "Simon Cooke" To: References: <007701bf4cc9$30720720$179908d1@wizard.net> Subject: Re: [Am-info] ms brainwashing & sweatshop machines. Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 21:59:41 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 By the way, what's really funny about this boycott MS site is that it's run by people who make money selling tutorials about writing software for Microsoft products. So go figure... Simon From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Thu Dec 23 01:03:52 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from hotmail.com (oe41.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.78]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2ECF821B49 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 01:03:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 23481 invoked by uid 65534); 23 Dec 1999 06:03:52 -0000 Message-ID: <19991223060352.23480.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.244.109.184] From: "Simon Cooke" To: References: <007801bf4cc9$3147f4c0$179908d1@wizard.net> Subject: Re: [Am-info] from the horses' mouths Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 22:04:00 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 From: "Nathan Dickerson" > A top MS MVP said on their MVP newsgroups referring to the MS > Innovate/Freedom page, "...god-awful propaganda page the > MS has the temerity to call a news page about its pending lawsuit with the > government. That page is as slanted and inaccurate as any piece of garbage > I've ever read." He goes on to say, "I've felt for the longest time that the > method > chosen for bundling IE was wrong and that it is possible to remove it from > the OS because the OS originally shipped without that piece. Simple logic, > simple solution, extremely dangerous opinion. Now, I don't feel the > slightest reason to be ashamed of the opinion..." I bet Mettler will like > that one . This is from Part 3, Fraud & Brainwashing. > http://www.agentstation.com/pms/fraudbrain.htm Er? So what? Would you be jumping up and down if Joe Q. DellSalesman at CompUSA (or whatever) was saying the same thing? Or if I was? Sheesh. Simon From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Thu Dec 23 09:46:35 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from denali.atlnet.com (denali.atlnet.com [208.148.155.187]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FC2621B20 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 09:46:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from atlnet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by denali (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA20008 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 09:38:44 -0500 Sender: esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Message-ID: <386233F4.58C02341@atlnet.com> Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 09:38:44 -0500 From: Wandered Inn Organization: Nocturnal Aviation Software Design X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.10 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Appraising Microsoft Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Am-info] new list software One thing I've found a problem with the new list software is that it denying my email because it could not resolve my machine's name. This should not happen since my hostname is fully qualified (denali.atlnet.com) and it is real. I changed my machine name to atlnet.com and the mail went through. Obviously I can't leave it that way, because my machine name is not atlnet, that's my provider. I could change my mail server to reflect that of my provider, but I prefer to use my own machine. I use Netscape for mail, and my out going mail server is set to localhost. I do this so that I can send email when my networks not up. That way it just queues up rather than sit in my outbox. I've changed my email address in Netscape from esoteric@denali.atlnet.com to esoteric@atlnet.com to see if this resolves the problem Jamie referred to where he has to 'approve' my email messages. Jamie, let me know if this fixes that problem. I'm hoping that the name resolution problem get's corrected as that's not a problem with my set up or the new software, but actually the dns on the list server end. -- Until later: Geoffrey esoteric@denali.atlnet.com It should be illegal to yell "Y2K" in a crowded economy. -- Larry Wall, creator of the programming language Perl From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Thu Dec 23 12:33:30 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from vcnet.com (mail.vcnet.com [209.239.239.15]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 64F7321BD1 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 12:33:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 81404 invoked from network); 23 Dec 1999 17:33:30 -0000 Received: from port85.dial.vcnet.com (HELO ?209.239.238.85?) (209.239.238.85) by mail.vcnet.com with SMTP; 23 Dec 1999 17:33:30 -0000 Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 09:33:30 -0800 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Mitch Stone To: "am-info" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-Id: <19991223173330.64F7321BD1@venice.essential.org> --- From a message sent by Eric Bennett on 12/22/99 2:31 PM --- >Mitch Stone wrote: > >> I don't remember hearing the Gateway rumor (what are _your_ sources?), >> and really we had very little solid information about how the clone >> licensing program was formulated anyway. But I do recall that several >> cloning rumors floated around well before Motorola, UMAX and PCC came on >> the scene, and they all involved established PC box builders. None of >> these companies ever risked crossing Microsoft before, so I don't think >> my theory about why this never came to pass is a great leap of logic. > >Well then, it's your memory against mine, since I don't recall where I >read this. Too bad, but I landfilled a huge stack of old MacWeek magazines when we moved a couple of years ago. Some of this stuff is on the web, but only going back to about 1993. >> All decisions carry associated costs. Even doing nothing incurs a cost, >> though it might be more difficult to calculate. In the case of computer >> hardware, which is all but obsolete after three or four years, and >> software which gets replaced (or upgraded) almost annually, the cost of >> replacement of one platform with another could be negligible -- or even a >> net positive if the replacement decision is a sound one. A potentially >> important point missed by Judge Jackson? > >I'm not so sure. Our secretary was using a Mac IIsi until this fall. >We still use a Quadra 630 for document scanning. And we spend tens of >thousands on Unix workstations so it's not like we can't afford to >replace these things. We just don't bother, because they still do the >jobs they are supposed to do. High-end users may replace hardware >frequently, but I'm not so convinced the rest of the world does. As I say, there's a cost associated with doing nothing. Certainly, your old 630 does the same job it always did, and it always will until it self-immolates, probably not for many years. We kept a bunch of legacy equipment running daily here until recently (including a Quadra and a 636 upgraded to a 6300), but eventually I found I could not take them where I wanted to go. It gave me great pains, but eventually retirement and replacement became the smartest option. (Hey, I've got a Mac IIx and a 19-inch monochrome monitor gathering dust in the garage. Interested in some ten-year-old technology? Cheap?) >As for software, it takes Microsoft several years to come out with new >versions of Office, so even if we wanted to immediately buy the latest >Office when it came out it would only be every three years or so. Some >of the software we use hasn't been updated since 1991. I doubt that >this is typical, but I'm also suspicious of suggestions that users are >always buying the latest versions. Unfortunately I don't know where we >can get any numbers to check these assumptions. Even buying upgrades is >a lot cheaper than buying all new versions (except in the rare cases >where "crossgrades" are available). Microsoft's product cycle is pretty leisurely, but they are not necessarily the rule in the industry. Intuit upgrades Quicken every year (except for the Mac version, of course). Keeping track of Adobe upgrades is like trying to take a census in a rabbit warren. It would be interesting to compare the initial cost of software purchases against the upgrade costs incurred over, say, a three-year period from the initial purchase of the computer. Assuming the owner wants -- or needs -- to stay current, I'd guess the costs would equalize in maybe three or four years. Speaking of the need to stay current, I'm regularly seeing Word98 files attached to e-mails. I can't even find a translator for these documents anywhere, so the upgrading push factor has got to be significant. Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Thu Dec 23 12:33:31 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from vcnet.com (mail.vcnet.com [209.239.239.15]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4664221BD9 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 12:33:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 81427 invoked from network); 23 Dec 1999 17:33:31 -0000 Received: from port85.dial.vcnet.com (HELO ?209.239.238.85?) (209.239.238.85) by mail.vcnet.com with SMTP; 23 Dec 1999 17:33:31 -0000 Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Corel Lawsuit Challenges U.S. Government Contract Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 09:33:31 -0800 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Mitch Stone To: "am-info" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-Id: <19991223173331.4664221BD9@venice.essential.org> --- From a message sent by Eric Lee Green on 12/22/99 8:50 PM --- >On Tue, 21 Dec 1999, Mitch Stone wrote: >> --- From a message sent by Norm on 12/21/99 3:01 AM --- >> >>I recently received a Request for Proposal from a California state agency >> >>specifically stipulating that all of the contractor's work be prepared >> >>and presented in Microsoft Word for Windows -- not even Word for the >> >>Macintosh (assuming we owned that) is allowed, apparently. So I guess we >> >>won't be proposing. We see this in federal contract specifications as >> >>well. > >> paper stock specification. But nobody seems to bat an eyelash with a >> specification to use Microsoft Word for Windows. And filing a formal >> complaint would only brand one as a crank, effectively disqualifying them >> from any further contracting opportunities with this agency. It's a >> lose-lose proposition. > >Well, if it were a contract I wanted, I'd buy a copy of Word for Windows. But >there's other more blatant things where it's very definitely the right >thing to >do to raise hell. [snip] I have neither Word nor Windows, and the RFP insists I have both. Raising hell is tempting, but ultimately not a viable option. Even assuming I had the time and energy for hell-raising (or more hell-raising then I already do), I'd certainly alienate the staff at this state agency, which would be exceptionally unwise move from a professional standpoint. So in effect I can either put up or shut up. And knowing what I know about the personnel in this office, they realize they are shutting out some potential contractors, but don't care. The point I'm making is that the practice of requiring citizens to purchase and use products Microsoft in order to conduct business with government agencies is a becoming depressingly commonplace. Another example: I recently visited the FAA web site and found a large number of supposedly public documents posted exclusively in Word or Excel formats. Of course I often write to these agencies and let them know that restricting access to public information is neither necessary nor right and proper, but of course I never hear back. The bottom line is that we need some public policy discussion about this. Maybe the Corel lawsuit will raise the profile of the issue, which I think is a very, very serious one. Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Thu Dec 23 19:13:56 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from Kitten.mcs.net (Kitten.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA3A321B08 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 19:13:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from mcs.com (stevecoh.pr.mcs.net [204.95.62.224]) by Kitten.mcs.net (8.9.3/8.8.2) with ESMTP id SAA19881; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 18:13:38 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3862BA4D.CCD04BD5@mcs.com> Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 18:11:57 -0600 From: Steve Cohen X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Wandered Inn Cc: James Love , Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: [Am-info] Issues with new mailman software References: <38605561.3CF6803F@cptech.org> <38610821.1406F76D@mcs.com> <38612C5E.FA671273@cptech.org> <38617217.A510A22D@denali.atlnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit OK. I am posting this one from Netscape in my Win95 partition. I expect this one to work. On Linux I have had to install and reinstall 6.1 a couple of times, so I am spending more time than I should as root, to the point where I've got a Netscape setup there. This setup and the one I maintain for my non-root id may not be the same. So I'd like to know, Jamie - do you have to fix ALL my postings, (or at least all my postings from Linux) or do some of them get through unassisted. Also, when you do fix up one of my postings, is there any way that looking at it, I can tell? Wandered Inn wrote: > James Love wrote: > > > > Steve Cohen wrote: > > > I have not had any trouble posting from Linux. And like you, I am using > > > Netscape as my mail client. You do have to get your Netscape setting > > > correct. What would be a more interesting test would be to boot the > > > Win95 portion of my dual boot and see if my postings from there would > > > work. But previously, I could post from either place. I suppose > > > Netscape versions might be critical. Mine is 4.61, but frankly, it > > > seems to me that this feature of Netscape hasn't changed much through > > > all the revisions I've seen. > > > > You are having tons of problems. All of your posts have bounced, and > > required manual authorization from me. > > Jamie, I don't know what the problem is, but I've been using mail lists > for a good ten years, always from Unix clients. Now, I don't see any of > my posts making it to the list. I'm also using Netscape and Linux. > > Personally, I think the problem is with the package and not the posters. > > > > > Jamie > > > > -- > > James Love / Director, Consumer Project on Technology > > http://www.cptech.org / love@cptech.org > > P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 > > voice 202.387.8030 / fax 202.234.5176 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Am-info mailing list > > Am-info@lists.essential.org > > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info > > -- > Until later: Geoffrey esoteric@denali.atlnet.com > > It should be illegal to yell "Y2K" in a crowded economy. > -- Larry Wall, creator of the programming language Perl From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Thu Dec 23 20:32:13 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from dfw-smtpout2.email.verio.net (dfw-smtpout2-ext.email.verio.net [129.250.36.42]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61FF821B22 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 20:32:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from [129.250.38.94] (helo=dfw-mailtemp.techops.verio.net) by dfw-smtpout2.email.verio.net with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #7) id 121JaY-0000RK-00 for am-info@lists.essential.org; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 01:32:14 +0000 Received: from [168.143.12.237] (helo=normanmo.clark.net) by dfw-mailtemp.techops.verio.net with smtp (Exim 3.12 #6) id 121Jad-0000xS-00 for am-info@lists.essential.org; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 01:32:20 +0000 From: "Norm" To: "am-info@lists.essential.org" Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 20:32:11 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: "Norm" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 2.10.1999 for OS/2 Warp 4.00 In-Reply-To: <19991223173331.4664221BD9@venice.essential.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Corel Lawsuit Challenges U.S. Government Contract Message-Id: On Thu, 23 Dec 1999 09:33:31 -0800, Mitch Stone wrote: >The point I'm making is that the practice of requiring citizens to >purchase and use products Microsoft in order to conduct business with >government agencies is a becoming depressingly commonplace. Another >example: I recently visited the FAA web site and found a large number of >supposedly public documents posted exclusively in Word or Excel formats. >Of course I often write to these agencies and let them know that >restricting access to public information is neither necessary nor right >and proper, but of course I never hear back. Yeah I've done that too, but I seriously doubt they give a damn. >The bottom line is that we need some public policy discussion about this. >Maybe the Corel lawsuit will raise the profile of the issue, which I >think is a very, very serious one. Better yet, Corel wins the suit and it costs them serious money...nothing changes a bad policy like having to shell out some cash because of it. ...Cheers, ...Norm *********************************************** * Brought to you by OS/2 Warp v4.0 and PMMail * * For a copy of my PGP key send me a message * * with "send pub_key" in the subject * *********************************************** From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Thu Dec 23 23:30:47 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from denali.atlnet.com (denali.atlnet.com [208.148.155.187]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C84EA21B4C for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 23:30:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from atlnet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by denali (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA20446 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 09:41:45 -0500 Sender: esoteric@denali.atlnet.com Message-ID: <386234A9.810E870D@atlnet.com> Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 09:41:45 -0500 From: Wandered Inn Organization: Nocturnal Aviation Software Design X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.10 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Appraising Microsoft Subject: Re: [Am-info] new list software References: <386233F4.58C02341@atlnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, since this worked, it appears that the dns issue has been resolved, and by changing my email address in Netscape, I'm now getting my posts through. I will probably unsubscribe/re-subscribe so I can set my email address back to my preference. Wandered Inn wrote: > > One thing I've found a problem with the new list software is that it > denying my email because it could not resolve my machine's name. This > should not happen since my hostname is fully qualified > (denali.atlnet.com) and it is real. > > I changed my machine name to atlnet.com and the mail went through. > Obviously I can't leave it that way, because my machine name is not > atlnet, that's my provider. I could change my mail server to reflect > that of my provider, but I prefer to use my own machine. > > I use Netscape for mail, and my out going mail server is set to > localhost. I do this so that I can send email when my networks not up. > That way it just queues up rather than sit in my outbox. > > I've changed my email address in Netscape from > esoteric@denali.atlnet.com to esoteric@atlnet.com to see if this > resolves the problem Jamie referred to where he has to 'approve' my > email messages. Jamie, let me know if this fixes that problem. > > I'm hoping that the name resolution problem get's corrected as that's > not a problem with my set up or the new software, but actually the dns > on the list server end. > -- > Until later: Geoffrey esoteric@denali.atlnet.com > > It should be illegal to yell "Y2K" in a crowded economy. > -- Larry Wall, creator of the programming language Perl > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info -- Until later: Geoffrey esoteric@denali.atlnet.com It should be illegal to yell "Y2K" in a crowded economy. -- Larry Wall, creator of the programming language Perl From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Fri Dec 24 10:56:57 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from ms17.hinet.net (ms17.hinet.net [168.95.4.17]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A22021B22 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 10:56:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from dski@localhost) by ms17.hinet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA04301 for am-info@lists.essential.org; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 23:56:45 +0800 (CST) From: dski@ms17.hinet.net Message-Id: <199912241556.XAA04301@ms17.hinet.net> Subject: [Am-info] Re: Counting To: am-info@venice.essential.org (AM-INFO List) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 23:56:45 +0800 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25 ME8b] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Geoffrey "Wandered Inn" (esoteric@denali.atlnet.com) wrote -- > How about we give up trying to convince Mettler regarding any issues on > bundling. Maybe he will quit bringing it up. Outside of a handful of > posts, I've gotten little use of the list lately. I don't know why > Mettler suddenly has so much time on his hands, but he's destroyed the > purpose of this list. He has furthered that purpose greatly. The experience has not been entirely pleasant, but it has been worthwhile. It has made me examine my beliefs and motivations, and I won't mind if it continues. Not being attached to any particular bundle or bundler, I find the resistance to Mr. Mettler's statements extraordinary. I don't think he would have gotten a stronger reaction if he were advocating cannibalism. This calls for serious reflection. Appraising Microsoft -- indeed, appraising anything -- must ideally involve appraising ourselves as well. This means understanding ourselves better -- and that cannot come without also understanding others better. What assumptions or expectations underlie our positions, the positions of those we find ourselves allied with, and the positions of those aligned against us? We must never stop considering these questions. Now, I'm going to say a few things that may cause many here to recoil and issue the fiercest denials. I am certain that the monopolist is much encouraged by most of the reactions to Mr. Mettler's statements. (This is not to say or imply anything at all about those statements themselves.) One of the tenets of our age is that we have "arrived," that we have left behind the misconceptions and delusions of the past. We give those misconceptions and delusions names that mark them as things of the past, and we think smugly of how far we have come. I'm not so sure we've come very far at all. Future historians might very well give the formative assumptions of our age names like the doctrine of corporate infallibility and the divine right of CEOs. I repeat: Appraising Microsoft means appraising ourselves as well. Are we so different from those who aided and abetted this monster? Perhaps not. A look at ourselves might help us understand how Microsoft is able to ravage entire industries and markets. It will soon be Christmas Day, 1999. May those who seek special joy on this day find it; may all people of good will have their wishes and hopes fulfilled. Dan Strychalski Hsinchu, Taiwan, R.O.C. December 24, 1999 From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Fri Dec 24 11:41:35 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from omnifarious.mn.org (ehopper-host105.dsl.visi.com [209.98.248.105]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 864C321B22 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 11:41:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 21886 invoked by uid 310); 24 Dec 1999 16:41:30 -0000 Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 10:41:30 -0600 From: "Eric M. Hopper" To: dski@ms17.hinet.net Cc: AM-INFO List Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Counting Message-ID: <19991224104130.A21876@omnifarious.mn.org> References: <199912241556.XAA04301@ms17.hinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3i In-Reply-To: <199912241556.XAA04301@ms17.hinet.net> On Fri, Dec 24, 1999 at 11:56:45PM +0800, dski@ms17.hinet.net wrote: > > He has furthered that purpose greatly. The experience has not been > entirely pleasant, but it has been worthwhile. It has made me examine my > beliefs and motivations, and I won't mind if it continues. > > Not being attached to any particular bundle or bundler, I find the > resistance to Mr. Mettler's statements extraordinary. I don't think > he would have gotten a stronger reaction if he were advocating > cannibalism. This calls for serious reflection. The strong reaction has been because of the way he argues, not the arguments he makes. Have fun (if at all possible), -- Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God. Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul. ---Mark Twain -- Eric Hopper (hopper@omnifarious.mn.org http://omnifarious.mn.org/~hopper) -- From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Fri Dec 24 12:55:11 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from prserv.net (out4.prserv.net [165.87.194.239]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74C2B21B17 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 12:55:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp1.attglobal.net ([32.101.179.122]) by prserv.net (out4) with SMTP id <1999122417551023900cni6ve>; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 17:55:10 +0000 From: "Ethical at One of One dot Net" Reply-To: Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 09:55:10 -0800 To: "am-info" In-Reply-To: <19991223173331.4664221BD9@venice.essential.org> X-Mailer: MR/2 Internet Cruiser Edition for OS/2 v1.60 b60 Message-Id: <19991224175511.74C2B21B17@venice.essential.org> Subject: [Am-info] Hubble Upgrade Forwarded from Don Tsuchiyama By Marcia Dunn Associated Press ...The Hubble's old computer is based on an Intel 386 microchip. The new one is an Intel 486 - 20 times faster with six times the memory. Actually, there are three identical computers in the replacement box, only one of which is used at any given time. Each has two megabytes of memory. "Now that doesn't sound like much in days where everybody talks about 64 megabytes or 128 megabytes," said Hubble program manager John Campbell. "But you should keep in mind that we don't do Windows..." -- ----------------------------------------------------------- "Ethical at One of One dot Net" [T. Guilbert] sending email to you from lovely Portland, Oregon, USofA ----------------------------------------------------------- From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Fri Dec 24 18:07:08 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from proxy4.ba.best.com (proxy4.ba.best.com [206.184.139.15]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C35C21B08 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 18:07:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ckaner-98 (cust166.tnt1.dial.tor2.uunet.ca [209.47.186.166]) by proxy4.ba.best.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/best.out) with ESMTP id PAA03564; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 15:06:55 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991223163651.040ac810@shell5.ba.best.com> X-Sender: cemkaner@shell5.ba.best.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 16:36:52 -0800 To: Wandered Inn From: Cem Kaner Subject: Re: [Am-info] Counting Cc: Appraising Microsoft Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 09:24 PM 12/21/99 -0500, Wandered Inn wrote: > I don't know why >Mettler suddenly has so much time on his hands, but he's destroyed the >purpose of this list. Perhaps he's been paid by Microsoft. _______________________________________________________________________ Cem Kaner, J.D., Ph.D. P.O. Box 1200, Santa Clara, CA 95052 http://www.kaner.com http://www.badsoftware.com Author (with Falk & Nguyen) of TESTING COMPUTER SOFTWARE (2nd Ed, VNR) Author (with David Pels) of BAD SOFTWARE (Wiley, 1998) This e-mail communication should not be interpreted as legal advice or a legal opinion. The transmission of this e-mail communication does not create an attorney-client relationship between me and you. Do not act or rely upon law-related information in this communication without seeking the advice of an attorney. Finally, nothing in this message should be interpreted as a "digital signature" or "electronic signature" that can create binding commercial transactions. From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Fri Dec 24 18:31:39 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from pjprimer.com (dweeb.pjprimer.com [209.198.137.226]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B770421B35 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 18:31:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from desktop (joe@desktop.pjprimer.com [209.198.137.227]) by pjprimer.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA01360; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 18:32:58 -0600 From: Joe Barr Reply-To: joe@pjprimer.com Organization: The Dweebspeak Primer To: Cem Kaner , Wandered Inn Subject: Re: [Am-info] Counting Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 17:25:38 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Appraising Microsoft References: <4.2.0.58.19991223163651.040ac810@shell5.ba.best.com> In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19991223163651.040ac810@shell5.ba.best.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <99122417260501.00697@desktop> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit That thought has crossed my mind. On Thu, 23 Dec 1999, Cem Kaner wrote: > At 09:24 PM 12/21/99 -0500, Wandered Inn wrote: > > I don't know why > >Mettler suddenly has so much time on his hands, but he's destroyed the > >purpose of this list. > > > > Perhaps he's been paid by Microsoft. > _______________________________________________________________________ > Cem Kaner, J.D., Ph.D. > P.O. Box 1200, Santa Clara, CA 95052 > > http://www.kaner.com > http://www.badsoftware.com > > Author (with Falk & Nguyen) of TESTING COMPUTER SOFTWARE (2nd Ed, VNR) > Author (with David Pels) of BAD SOFTWARE (Wiley, 1998) > > This e-mail communication should not be interpreted as legal advice > or a legal opinion. The transmission of this e-mail communication > does not create an attorney-client relationship between me and you. > Do not act or rely upon law-related information in this communication > without seeking the advice of an attorney. Finally, nothing in this > message should be interpreted as a "digital signature" or "electronic > signature" that can create binding commercial transactions. > > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info -- +----------------------------------------- + "I shall try to look like a small black + cloud. That will deceive them." Pooh From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Fri Dec 24 20:25:53 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from hotmail.com (oe41.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.78]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AE6D621B02 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 20:25:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 44310 invoked by uid 65534); 25 Dec 1999 01:25:52 -0000 Message-ID: <19991225012552.44309.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.245.169.215] From: "Simon Cooke" To: "Appraising Microsoft" References: <4.2.0.58.19991223163651.040ac810@shell5.ba.best.com> <99122417260501.00697@desktop> Subject: Re: [Am-info] Counting Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 17:25:52 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Wandered Inn wrote: I don't know why Mettler suddenly has so much time on his hands, but he's destroyed the purpose of this list. Cem Kaner wrote: Perhaps he's been paid by Microsoft. Joe Barr wrote: That thought has crossed my mind. <><><><><> Hmmm... don't think so. He was banned from the MSNBC Technology BBS for this *EXACT* same behavior. Of course, he'd never admit it - he claims it's because of the way he was "saying things that Microsoft wanted kept secret" - when in fact, he was just engaging in his "see no evil, hear no evil" debating technique. I will admit that Lewis does do one thing well: cut & paste debating. Usually, this pounds others into submission. Simon From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Fri Dec 24 21:09:10 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from vcnet.com (mail.vcnet.com [209.239.239.15]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2AB8E21B02 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 21:09:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 35063 invoked from network); 25 Dec 1999 02:09:10 -0000 Received: from 1-0-183.adsl.vcnet.com (HELO ?192.168.0.2?) (209.239.242.84) by mail.vcnet.com with SMTP; 25 Dec 1999 02:09:10 -0000 Subject: Re: [Am-info] Counting Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 18:09:11 -0800 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Mitch Stone To: "Appraising Microsoft" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-Id: <19991225020910.2AB8E21B02@venice.essential.org> --- From a message sent by Simon Cooke on 12/24/99 5:25 PM --- >Usually, this pounds others into submission. Don't mistake walking away for submission. Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Fri Dec 24 22:02:15 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from jose.mortimer.com (jose.mortimer.com [204.50.26.2]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DFC0421B0E for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 22:02:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from [209.53.15.124] by jose.lionsgate.com (NTMail 3.03.0018/1d.aaab) with ESMTP id ha157567 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 19:04:57 -0800 From: "Mike Stephen" To: "Am-info@lists.essential.org" Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 19:01:54 +0800 Reply-To: "Mike Stephen" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 1.96a For OS/2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <03045726513904@lionsgate.com> Subject: [Am-info] Separate the hardware from the software The problem I have with Mettlers assertions is his style. Although I am loath to admit it, he is correct regarding bundling. However there is no point trying to right the "wrongs".... we cannot expect to even decide what is to be included in an operating system and what is not. Linux (most distributions), Beos, and (if IBM would wake up) OS/2, all include lots of valuable software with the operating system, we cannot expect to go back in time when we might better be able to decide what is and is not an operating system. In a little while Microsoft will decide that they want all the database profit to themselves. They will do to IBM (DB/2) and Oracle exactly what they did to Netscape. They will include for "free" SQL in the server product, thereby excluding both of those other players even though they are miles ahead of the rather simplistic SQL from Microsoft. Now after stating that Mettler has a point, I also realize that we cannot do anything about it that will not require massive intervention and overseeing of Microsoft. However if we give the green light to Linux, Beos, OS/2, QNX to compete on a level playing field, we can expect that BEOS will include all the features they can get their hands on, and sell it to the end user at the time of hardware purchase. Same applies to OS/2 and QNX, and Linux. This would promote all those OS systems into including lots of applications. To date none of them has as much included in the operating system as OS/2 does. It has a rather nice IBM Works program (It is exactly the same as Gobe in Beos except it also includes a fax program (by far the best available, it blows Winfax out of the water), a database, a spreadsheet, a PIM, Netscape, Web Explorer, a Terminal program, a full suite of TCPIP apps (that is real TCPIP rather than Msofts hack), plus even more things like Voice Type Dictation (something Msoft will claim as its own 7 years after IBM included it in OS/2.). And yes it does include network capability to network with Netware, Lantastic, Appletalk, Microsoft, All TCPIP capable networks, and Decnet, Banyon Vines, IBMnet, (probably others as well). The green light needed is to separate the operating system from the hardware sale (in fact rather than calling it an operating system, simply call it "software", as separate from hardware). It would allow all the vendors of operating systems to make compliant (hardware wise) cdroms that would allow users to choose an alternative system. This would allow all vendors to improve the installation process, and offer unique bundles of applications that might suite the user better than the Msoft alternative. The prices would be more competitive, the software quality would improve, the users would have a choice, and freedom might prevail. Although Mettler in my opinion has been tilting at windmills, he is not totally incorrect. He is just wasting time about a problem that has no easy solutions and in my opinion is unsolvable. However separating the hardware from the software not only has benefit to all end users, it also allows competition back from the non competitive computer industry. If all computer systems sold in retail stores, must have a price that excludes software, then there would be no need to monitor Msoft in that regard. simply put, all sales of Microsoft operating systems are done at the retail level rather than at the OEM level. It would also improve hardware compliance as well, as an added benefit. Microsoft couldn't complain about this, as it allows them to sell to retailers and distributors rather than OEMs at a higher gross price. Microsoft should gain even more funds if they sell to retailers rather than OEMs. I can envision distributions of alternative operating systems that are tailored to young kids (lots of games etc) students, office users, CAD users, Desktop publishers, Video producers, Audio producers etc etc etc. An operating system supplier might have 4-5 different bundles available for installation on computers bought at the same time they buy the hardware. This would open up the market for a number of ISV's that might want to license their programs to a operating system vendor. Admittedly it does not undo the damage done by Microsoft, but it does at least offer a competitive opportunity to the alternative operating system suppliers. At any rate, I suggest this as an alternative to Mettlers unbundle everything idea. I say bundle all you want, but there would be any number of alternative bundles available to the user when he/she wants to buy a computer. The small shops and box mover type stores will simply fall back on Windows because it is all that the store clerk knows, but the more advanced stores have an opportunity to offer more with alternative operating systems. this puts them miles ahead of the rest. Other than that..... Have a nice Christmas... From the Desk of Mike Stephen From the Desk of Mike Stephen From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Fri Dec 24 22:16:37 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from hotmail.com (oe1.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.105]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7BB1C21B0E for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 22:16:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 61752 invoked by uid 65534); 25 Dec 1999 03:16:34 -0000 Message-ID: <19991225031634.61751.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.245.175.205] From: "Simon Cooke" To: "Appraising Microsoft" References: <19991225020910.2AB8E21B02@venice.essential.org> Subject: Re: [Am-info] Counting Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 19:16:20 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 From: "Mitch Stone" > >Usually, this pounds others into submission. > > Don't mistake walking away for submission. Oh, I know - believe me - but unfortunately with most Internet debates, unrefuted assertions are taken as Gospel. *sighs* Simon From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Fri Dec 24 22:50:49 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from vcnet.com (mail.vcnet.com [209.239.239.15]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 09C1F21B02 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 22:50:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 52922 invoked from network); 25 Dec 1999 03:50:49 -0000 Received: from 1-0-183.adsl.vcnet.com (HELO ?192.168.0.2?) (209.239.242.84) by mail.vcnet.com with SMTP; 25 Dec 1999 03:50:49 -0000 Subject: Re: [Am-info] Counting Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 19:50:50 -0800 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Mitch Stone To: "Appraising Microsoft" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-Id: <19991225035049.09C1F21B02@venice.essential.org> --- From a message sent by Simon Cooke on 12/24/99 7:16 PM --- >From: "Mitch Stone" >> >Usually, this pounds others into submission. >> >> Don't mistake walking away for submission. > >Oh, I know - believe me - but unfortunately with most Internet debates, >unrefuted assertions are taken as Gospel. No they aren't. Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Sat Dec 25 00:05:12 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from mail.rdc1.az.home.com (ha1.rdc1.az.home.com [24.1.240.66]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07EA021B02 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 00:05:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ehome.inhouse ([24.9.114.169]) by mail.rdc1.az.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <19991225050512.HTMW2534.mail.rdc1.az.home.com@ehome.inhouse>; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 21:05:12 -0800 From: Eric Lee Green Organization: Myself @ Home To: dski@ms17.hinet.net, am-info@venice.essential.org (AM-INFO List) Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 21:15:29 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <199912201211.UAA02529@ms17.hinet.net> In-Reply-To: <199912201211.UAA02529@ms17.hinet.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <99122422083500.03195@ehome.inhouse> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Mon, 20 Dec 1999, dski@ms17.hinet.net wrote: > Eric Lee Green (, ) wrote -- > > I agree that Microsoft deliberately has made anti-competitive decisions > > regarding their product design. Microsoft intentionally tries to include > > proprietary protocols as part of their products in order to remove > > consumer choice, and attempts to break commodity protocols whenever > > possible in order to remove consumer choice. I have never stated that > > ALL bundling is helpful to consumers. > Oh -- where I come from, we call them "consensus-based, non-proprietary > formal standards," not "commodity protocols." The latter is a > Microsoftism and as inappropriate and ugly a construction as I have ever > encountered. Not at all inappropriate, actually. The genius of the Open Source movement is its ability to generate commodity components, from which distribution vendors pick and choose which components they want in their particular release of their OS. Thus Caldera Linux and Red Hat Linux both draw from the same pool of commodity components, but differentiate themselves by which components they decide to include with their particular version of the GNU/Linux OS. The BSD operating systems work in a similar way, except with a bit more granularity (for example, if FreeBSD makes an improvement to their OS, OpenBSD might "port" that code for their next release by patching their own OS with the changed code). In a sense, this works similar to the commodity hardware market that IBM inadvertently invented by opening the specs for the original ISA bus. The idea is that there is a huge pool of commodity components out there, and you pick and choose which ones you want for your own particular computer. Thus Compaq might choose a different set of components than Dell, but for the most part they are all drawing from the same pool of components, albeit they may be packaging them different, or choose different components, or even engineer a few of their own components when they can't find one in the commodity pool, but the latter is not cost-effective in today's market and thus is generally only done for extremely high-volume or high-priced machines. In this sense, a "commodity protocol" is one that has an implementation out there in that vast array of commodity components available for implementation in an operating system. Thus HTTP is most definitely a commodity protocol, since there exist a huge number of implementations out there that you could adopt as part of your own product. The underlying TCP/IP seems to be pretty much all based on the commodity BSD source code, even Microsoft's implementation was originally licensed from Berkeley and even Linux uses the BSD "user-land" code (though the kernel-land code is all rewritten from scratch). I think this difference between an open implementation and an open specification is important. Microsoft often claims that they are "open" because they have released the specification to CIFS (their new moniker for their SMB file sharing protocol). The problem is that specifications capable of producing interoperable implementations are almost impossible -- just ask the CORBA folks, who continue to have interoperability problems after years of work. The thing that happens in real life is that people choose a reference implementation against which all other implementations must measure, or else (as with CORBA) they tear their hair out trying to get things to interoperate. My basic conclusion is that an "open" standard whose standard and reference implementation are both one company's proprietary product is not, in fact, open. Examples abound of such "open" standards (like, e.g., Sun's Java or Microsoft's SMB ) that are not open, and of other truly open standards (such as the "X" Window System) where the reference implementation truly IS open -- my programs all work pretty much the same whether I'm using the Linux port of the reference implementation (XFree86) or one of the commercial implementations (AcceleratedX, MetroX). Anyhow, I've meandered on for far too long, and reached no real conclusions. I guess if we were going to commoditize Windows and its protocols, what we'd have to do is pretty much the same as with Linux -- put all the components under the control of one or more non-profit entities, which then licenses them out to companies that wish to assemble their own operating systems, with the proviso that all improvements must be returned back to the "pool" so that the implementations do not "fork" and become incompatible. You could then buy a version of Windows 98 from LeanSoft that does not include the IE interface, or you could buy a version of Windows 98 from FatSoft that does include the IE interface, much as you can choose a version of Linux that includes only the KDE interface (e.g., Caldera or Corel Linux), or you can choose a version of Linux that includes the "fatter" GNOME interface too (Red Hat Linux), or even a version of Linux that includes the stripped-down AfterStep interface as its default (TurboLinux). The question of whether this is a reasonable and workable solution to the problem of a company leveraging a proprietary "base" is an interesting one for the legal scholars, rather than being a technical issue -- I think we've pretty much proven in the Linux realm that there's no real technical problems involved in commoditizing the underlying component pool of the OS and allowing vendors to assemble those components in any way they wish. Not to mention that this is exactly how the "X" Consortium worked for many years... Oh -- I'm ignoring personal attacks for the moment, so don't bother with flames. Interesting, insightful arguments, on the other hand, are always welcome. -- Eric Lee Green e_l_green@hotmail.com http://members.tripod.com/e_l_green From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Sun Dec 26 17:26:18 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from smtp.well.com (unknown [208.178.101.5]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0006321B0B for ; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 17:26:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from well.com (dmasson@well.com [208.178.101.2]) by smtp.well.com (8.8.5/8.8.4) with ESMTP id RAA22711 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 17:32:53 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 17:32:52 -0800 (PST) From: Doug Masson To: am-info Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Am-info] Yahoo to drop Real Audio for Windows Media player ON24 Audio Investor Alert: Yahoo Rumored To Be Dropping RealNetworks Real Audio for Microsoft Window Media (BUSINESS WIRE)-- According to a report published by InternetNews.com, Yahoo! Broadcast, the streaming media arm of Yahoo! is moving to drop RealNetworks Real Audio format with Microsoft window Media Player. For the complete streaming audio story users should access http://www.on24.com/index.html?id=10767&type=av&ref=bizwire _____________________________________________________ Doug Masson There is no windchill dmasson@well.com at absolute zero. From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Sun Dec 26 17:30:21 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from smtp.well.com (unknown [208.178.101.5]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D454321B1B for ; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 17:30:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from well.com (dmasson@well.com [208.178.101.2]) by smtp.well.com (8.8.5/8.8.4) with ESMTP id OAA23687 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 14:15:17 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 14:15:16 -0800 (PST) From: Doug Masson To: am-info Subject: Re: [Am-info] ms brainwashing & sweatshop machines. In-Reply-To: <007701bf4cc9$30720720$179908d1@wizard.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Wow, once again, the Simpsons is a stunningly accurate mirror of American life. In last Sunday's episode, the school runs out of money so they give a business the franchise to run the school. The school uses their franchise to do market research on the kids for a product the company is marketing. "O.K. kids, now if, for example, we wanted a name that let somebody know that a toy is fun, what would we call it?" And here we see that MS is employing similar tactics. (Though I'm sure they are not alone in this particular practice). _____________________________________________________ Doug Masson There is no windchill dmasson@well.com at absolute zero. On Wed, 22 Dec 1999, Nathan Dickerson wrote: > Some of you may have missed it: http://www.agentstation.com/pms/abuse.htm > > MS has a child work force. That's why it's so popular these days. For > example, MS got Active Desktop and Active Channel names from a kiddie > contest (digital camera bribes to suck out name ideas). And from Part I on > the site--- [from Microsoft's Brian Hall]: "Hey guys. Harry Goodwin gave me > your names as students in clubIE. I'm a product manager who is setting up > our educational marketing plan. Few questions for you: * What school are > you at, how big, what estimate OS percentages are (i.e. x% PC-Win95/NT, y% > PC -Win3.x, u% mac, v% UNIX)? * What is your school's standard browser? how > is it distributed to all students? Is IE supported (and what is your > support structure)? * Same as above for email. also, let me know if you know > anything more that might help me out as far as increasing IE share goes. > Please forward these questions and my address on to any other students you > know in ClubIE or others who would help." > > And yes, MVPs are MS employees. I think I left out the fact that if you stop > being an active MS supporter, MS will give you multiple evening phone calls > even waking you up in order to get you back to work. Anyway, secret APIs, > similarities with the perma-temp cases, negative social influences, > admissions that bundling was wrong and unbundling is possible and MS > statements are trash-- are all revealed on the site. It takes a while to get > through it all but there are interesting tidbits. I'll post 1 or 2 more > messages here about it. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info > > From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Sun Dec 26 17:33:48 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from smtp.well.com (unknown [208.178.101.5]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5383021B0B for ; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 17:33:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from well.com (dmasson@well.com [208.178.101.2]) by smtp.well.com (8.8.5/8.8.4) with ESMTP id OAA29012 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 14:38:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 14:38:11 -0800 (PST) From: Doug Masson To: am-info Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Am-info] FC: Larry Lessig gets to file amicus brief; Jackson overrules MS (fwd) From Declan's list: To: politech@vorlon.mit.edu Subject: FC: Larry Lessig gets to file amicus brief; Jackson overrules MS ******** Jackson's somewhat pointed order: http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/98-1232q.pdf ******** By John R. Wilke Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal The Wall Street Journal WASHINGTON -- U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson rejected Microsoft Corp.'s objections to Lawrence Lessig's renewed participation in the company's antitrust trial, saying he finds no convincing evidence the Harvard University Internet expert is biased against Microsoft. Microsoft had said in an earlier court filing that Mr. Lessig, whose views on the case had been solicited by Judge Jackson, "may not be an impartial friend of the court with regard to legal issues in the case." [...] In its filing -- the second time in the case that Microsoft had objected to Mr. Lessig -- the company excerpted a brief radio interview in which Mr. Lessig is quoted as saying Microsoft's control of the "architecture of cyberspace" is a "threat to innovation." It had also complained that he was associated with an advisory group connected to Red Hat Software Inc., which promotes Linux, computer operating-system software that competes with Microsoft's dominant Windows software in some markets. [...] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology To subscribe: send a message to majordomo@vorlon.mit.edu with this text: subscribe politech More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 27 00:47:58 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from hotmail.com (oe33.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.26]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 993AC21B09 for ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 00:47:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 39576 invoked by uid 65534); 27 Dec 1999 05:47:58 -0000 Message-ID: <19991227054758.39575.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.245.167.109] From: "Simon Cooke" To: "am-info" References: Subject: Re: [Am-info] ms brainwashing & sweatshop machines. Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 21:47:57 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 From: "Doug Masson" > Wow, once again, the Simpsons is a stunningly accurate mirror of American > life. In last Sunday's episode, the school runs out of money so they give > a business the franchise to run the school. The school uses their > franchise to do market research on the kids for a product the company is > marketing. "O.K. kids, now if, for example, we wanted a name that let > somebody know that a toy is fun, what would we call it?" > > And here we see that MS is employing similar tactics. (Though I'm sure > they are not alone in this particular practice). I take it you read the ludicrous claims made in the article, rather than just taking it on face value, yes? The "kids" in question would appear to be students at high-school level or above who are highly computer proficient. Not what I'd call "children" at all. Lovely sensationalism though. Nothing like a few tall claims to get the pulse racing, eh? Simon From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 27 09:08:52 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-2.tricreations.com [216.205.16.111]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3679F21B09 for ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 09:08:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.37]) by lamlaw.com ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 09:08:17 -0500 Message-ID: <3867745D.1DA083E0@lamlaw.com> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 06:14:53 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: am-info Subject: Re: [Am-info] FC: Larry Lessig gets to file amicus brief; Jackson overrules MS(fwd) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There is no doubt that Microsoft's acts are intended to suppress innovation in regard to the internet. Unless offered by Microsoft that is. Hence IE is bundled. (For the sake of the very slow learners.) Doug Masson wrote: > > >From Declan's list: > > To: politech@vorlon.mit.edu > Subject: FC: Larry Lessig gets to file amicus brief; Jackson overrules MS > > ******** > > Jackson's somewhat pointed order: > http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/98-1232q.pdf > > ******** > > By John R. Wilke > Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal > The Wall Street Journal > > WASHINGTON -- U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson rejected > Microsoft Corp.'s objections to Lawrence Lessig's renewed participation > in the company's antitrust trial, saying he finds no convincing evidence > the Harvard University Internet expert is biased against Microsoft. > > Microsoft had said in an earlier court filing that Mr. Lessig, whose views > on the case had been solicited by Judge Jackson, "may not be an impartial > friend of the court with regard to legal issues in the case." > > [...] > > In its filing -- the second time in the case that Microsoft had objected to > Mr. Lessig -- the company excerpted a brief radio interview in which Mr. > Lessig is quoted as saying Microsoft's control of the "architecture of > cyberspace" is a "threat to innovation." It had also complained that he > was associated with an advisory group connected to Red Hat Software > Inc., which promotes Linux, computer operating-system software that > competes with Microsoft's dominant Windows software in some markets. > > [...] > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology > To subscribe: send a message to majordomo@vorlon.mit.edu with this text: > subscribe politech > More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 27 09:22:54 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-2.tricreations.com [216.205.16.111]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2684321B09 for ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 09:22:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.37]) by lamlaw.com ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 09:22:15 -0500 Message-ID: <38677793.CF6108CB@lamlaw.com> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 06:28:35 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: am-info Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems References: <19991222175550.45EA721B5D@venice.essential.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mitch, Mitch Stone wrote: > > --- From a message sent by Eric Bennett on 12/21/99 7:16 PM --- > > >Mitch Stone wrote: > > > >> I didn't follow this reasoning at first either, but you have explained it > >> to my satisfaction. The essential question is "what's the market?" If we > >> start with an unreasonable or vague definition of a product market, we'll > >> end up with absurd conclusions, such as "all bundling harms all > >> consumers" and "a Chevy is a ready substitute for a Ford, but a Mac is > >> not a ready substitute for a PC." > > > >If you are talking about the judge's finding about Apple, he made a > >subtle distinction which, based on your writing above, it appears you > >may have missed. > > > >Suppose we had a single company controlling gasoline, and the government > >sued this company for monopolistic practices. That company then > >countered by pointing out the availability of ethanol as a fuel... you > >can build a car to run on ethanol, but Americans don't have them... they > >have gas-powered cars. Americans could switch, but the switch is not as > >simple as switching from gasoline to ethanol. You have to buy a new car > >first. That's a significant price barrier given that a car costs a lot > >more than fuel (in the U.S. anyway). > > Well I wasn't actually -- I was speaking more generally. For purposes of > general discussion, the very fact that a substitute exists does not > necessarily cure the monopoly state (so I'm not making a Chicago School > type of argument here). Even if ethanol-fueled cars held a 10% market > share, and gasoline the other 90%, the sole gasoline producer probably > still operates a functional monopoly, including the ability to set prices > in the fuel market, to create artificial barriers to entry and take > advantage of other predatory methods of maintaining their monopoly (such > as demanding kick-backs from car makers or restricting service stations > from pumping both gas and ethanol). > > The single ethanol producer may be able to engage in price-fixing to an > extent, but this opportunity will be limited as a consequence of their > much smaller share of the fuel market, and it would be suicidal for them > play the kind of high-handed games available to the gasoline maker. This > is not to say that ethanol does not provide a substitute for gasoline in > this example. Obviously, it does. But the gasoline monopoly makes it > possible for the entire fuel market to be manipulated by the gasoline > manufacturer in anticompetitive ways the minority ethanol maker could not > achieve. > > >The situation in the computer industry is similar. The relevant market > >is not computer hardware. In that market, Apple hardware competes with > >PC hardware, but that is not the market that Jackson is looking at. > >He's looking at the operating system market. And if you are a Windows > >user, then switching to Mac OS requires you to buy a new computer > >first. And that computer raises the price of MacOS from, say, $90 to > >$90 plus the cost of a Mac... $900 if you want to buy a closeout iMac. > >I think this is why the judge ruled that Mac OS does not offer effective > >competition in the OS market. > > Yes, it is similar. I believe Judge Jackson did remark that Apple's > ability to compete with Windows is and was hampered by Microsoft's > lopsided market share, which is not the same as saying that Apple does > not compete in Microsoft's market. Apple could at least theoretically > compete with Microsoft more effectively if Microsoft did not engage in > anticompetitive, monopolistic practices. For example, Apple was > foreclosed from an opportunity to license the Mac OS to an existing PC > maker by Microsoft's hammerlock on the PC box builders. Instead, they > were forced to start from scratch with companies that had never built or > sold a computer, and this may have been a factor it the failure of the > experiment. Also, Apple scrapped plans to create an Intel-based version > of the Mac OS, for what I suspect were similar reasons. If the market is > defined too narrowly, the overall dynamics are missed, and this is a > highly dynamic market. > > >It does offer competition for people who are starting from scratch and > >are buying a complete system. But if you simply want to switch OSes, > >you have to swallow a huge cost--analagous to buying a car that will run > >on ethanol--before you can run Mac OS. > > I'm pretty suspicious of the cost of choice arguments. We replace our > cars just about as often as we replace our computers, and cars cost many > times more then computers. We don't complain about buying a new car; in > fact we seem to take great joy in it, consumer culture that we are. I > expect to buy my next car in 2002 or 2003, and by then I hope to have the > ability to choose something other then gasoline power. It's a choice I > fully expect to pay for, because all choices have costs. Read the bubblegum deal. It is not the cost of hardware that keeps consumers from switching to Apple. It is the cost of all of the applications that the customer may already own that will be needed to be repurchased if the operating system is changed. The better analogy would be switching your car to diesel fuel without a buying a different car. The Bill Gates piece also illustrates this affect to some effect. Bill already had a copy of IE and wanted only to buy the OS. However, due to bundling he had to buy another copy of the browser application simply because it was bundled. In Bill's case the extra cost was unavoidable. Customers thinking of switching to Apple can avoid that cost by not switching and buying the bubblegum instead. Simple concepts illustrated eloquently. (Although Microsoft hates those illustrations.) -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 27 09:30:50 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-2.tricreations.com [216.205.16.111]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3C6EA21B09 for ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 09:30:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.37]) by lamlaw.com ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 09:30:17 -0500 Message-ID: <38677985.14C5BB14@lamlaw.com> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 06:36:53 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems References: <19991222175550.45EA721B5D@venice.essential.org> <38611EE9.18507272@pobox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Eric Bennett wrote: > > Mitch Stone wrote: > > > Yes, it is similar. I believe Judge Jackson did remark that Apple's > > ability to compete with Windows is and was hampered by Microsoft's > > lopsided market share, which is not the same as saying that Apple does > > not compete in Microsoft's market. Apple could at least theoretically > > compete with Microsoft more effectively if Microsoft did not engage in > > anticompetitive, monopolistic practices. For example, Apple was > > foreclosed from an opportunity to license the Mac OS to an existing PC > > maker by Microsoft's hammerlock on the PC box builders. Instead, they > > were forced to start from scratch with companies that had never built or > > sold a computer, and this may have been a factor it the failure of the > > experiment. > > What are your sources for this information? The rumors I recall at the > time were > that Gateway in particular was *very* interested in becoming a Mac clone > vendor, but that Apple turned them down because it feared a big-name > vendor like Gateway would instantly steal too much of Apple's market > share. Quite the contrary to what you assume, everything I've heard was > that Apple had the opportunity to license with PC box makers and didn't > take it. > > > I'm pretty suspicious of the cost of choice arguments. We replace our > > cars just about as often as we replace our computers, and cars cost many > > times more then computers. > > But I doubt you also replace all your software, which is another > siginficant cost. Who wants to pay for a second copy of Microsoft > Office when you buy a new Mac and can't run the PC version anymore? The > point is, when you switch OSes, you incur a lot of extra costs beyond > the cost of the OS, and that does put up a barrier. For Mac OS, new > hardware is a signficant cost. Indeed it does. Purchasing all new applications, re-training all employees, hiring employees who know how to use the less common software and converting your company over are indeed associated with significant costs. Most will buy the bubblegum even if they do not chew it. The question is "How much candy could Microsoft make you buy before you switch?". > > Note that I don't fully agree with Jackson here. The empirical evidence > from a few years ago suggests that a lot of companies were perfectly > happy to bear the expense of replacing all of their Apple hardware with > PCs, so presumably a similar number would be willing to pay the money to > go in the opposite direction if a convincing case were made for doing > it. -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 27 09:43:06 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-2.tricreations.com [216.205.16.111]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9622D21B09 for ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 09:43:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.37]) by lamlaw.com ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 09:42:32 -0500 Message-ID: <38677C64.65D0EA74@lamlaw.com> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 06:49:08 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] from the horses' mouths References: <007801bf4cc9$3147f4c0$179908d1@wizard.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Nathan, Nathan Dickerson wrote: > > A top MS MVP said on their MVP newsgroups referring to the MS > Innovate/Freedom page, "...god-awful propaganda page the > MS has the temerity to call a news page about its pending lawsuit with the > government. That page is as slanted and inaccurate as any piece of garbage > I've ever read." He goes on to say, "I've felt for the longest time that the > method > chosen for bundling IE was wrong and that it is possible to remove it from > the OS because the OS originally shipped without that piece. Simple logic, > simple solution, extremely dangerous opinion. Now, I don't feel the > slightest reason to be ashamed of the opinion..." I bet Mettler will like > that one . This is from Part 3, Fraud & Brainwashing. > http://www.agentstation.com/pms/fraudbrain.htm There was testimony in the trial that bundling IE was simply a marketing decision. Whether selling IE and the OS separately is hard or easy is beside the point. It is very clear that separate consumer demand exists for browsers and always will. Microsoft Corporation itself recognizes that fact by making IE available for platforms other than Windows. It simply is not an OS function at all. It is an application, pure and simple. -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 27 09:45:39 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-2.tricreations.com [216.205.16.111]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 84E6421B09 for ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 09:45:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.37]) by lamlaw.com ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 09:44:58 -0500 Message-ID: <38677CF5.21378750@lamlaw.com> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 06:51:33 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems References: <19991222221325.273F521B11@venice.essential.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mitch, Not so when the application you need is not available on all other platforms. Judge Jackson did not miss this point. You did. See the bubblegum deal if you still do not understand. Did you buy the bubblegum or did you switch? How much did it cost you? Mitch Stone wrote: > > --- From a message sent by Eric Bennett on 12/22/99 10:56 AM --- > > >Mitch Stone wrote: > > > >> Yes, it is similar. I believe Judge Jackson did remark that Apple's > >> ability to compete with Windows is and was hampered by Microsoft's > >> lopsided market share, which is not the same as saying that Apple does > >> not compete in Microsoft's market. Apple could at least theoretically > >> compete with Microsoft more effectively if Microsoft did not engage in > >> anticompetitive, monopolistic practices. For example, Apple was > >> foreclosed from an opportunity to license the Mac OS to an existing PC > >> maker by Microsoft's hammerlock on the PC box builders. Instead, they > >> were forced to start from scratch with companies that had never built or > >> sold a computer, and this may have been a factor it the failure of the > >> experiment. > > > >What are your sources for this information? The rumors I recall at the > >time were > >that Gateway in particular was *very* interested in becoming a Mac clone > >vendor, but that Apple turned them down because it feared a big-name > >vendor like Gateway would instantly steal too much of Apple's market > >share. Quite the contrary to what you assume, everything I've heard was > >that Apple had the opportunity to license with PC box makers and didn't > >take it. > > I don't remember hearing the Gateway rumor (what are _your_ sources?), > and really we had very little solid information about how the clone > licensing program was formulated anyway. But I do recall that several > cloning rumors floated around well before Motorola, UMAX and PCC came on > the scene, and they all involved established PC box builders. None of > these companies ever risked crossing Microsoft before, so I don't think > my theory about why this never came to pass is a great leap of logic. > > >> I'm pretty suspicious of the cost of choice arguments. We replace our > >> cars just about as often as we replace our computers, and cars cost many > >> times more then computers. > > > >But I doubt you also replace all your software, which is another > >siginficant cost. Who wants to pay for a second copy of Microsoft > >Office when you buy a new Mac and can't run the PC version anymore? The > >point is, when you switch OSes, you incur a lot of extra costs beyond > >the cost of the OS, and that does put up a barrier. For Mac OS, new > >hardware is a signficant cost. > > > >Note that I don't fully agree with Jackson here. The empirical evidence > >from a few years ago suggests that a lot of companies were perfectly > >happy to bear the expense of replacing all of their Apple hardware with > >PCs, so presumably a similar number would be willing to pay the money to > >go in the opposite direction if a convincing case were made for doing > >it. > > All decisions carry associated costs. Even doing nothing incurs a cost, > though it might be more difficult to calculate. In the case of computer > hardware, which is all but obsolete after three or four years, and > software which gets replaced (or upgraded) almost annually, the cost of > replacement of one platform with another could be negligible -- or even a > net positive if the replacement decision is a sound one. A potentially > important point missed by Judge Jackson? > > Mitch Stone > mstone@vc.net > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 27 10:52:42 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-2.tricreations.com [216.205.16.111]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 67FB221B06 for ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 10:52:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.37]) by lamlaw.com ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 10:51:51 -0500 Message-ID: <38678C9F.47ED1DB6@lamlaw.com> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 07:58:23 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] Separate the hardware from the software References: <03045726513904@lionsgate.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mike Stephen wrote: > > The problem I have with Mettlers assertions is his style. Although I am loath to admit it, he is > correct regarding bundling. However there is no point trying to right the "wrongs".... we cannot > expect to even decide what is to be included in an operating system and what is not. Strangely enough I agree here. We should not and can not decide that issue. Utilities and applications should simply be unbundled and let consumers decide which brand they prefer if they want that application or utility at all. Where in the hell did anyone ever get the idea that decisions must be made "for the consumer"? > Linux > (most distributions), Beos, and (if IBM would wake up) OS/2, all include lots of valuable > software with the operating system, we cannot expect to go back in time when we might better > be able to decide what is and is not an operating system. It is a matter of cause and affect. Microsoft bundles to force the sale of their brand. (Stac, Lantastic, Netscape, Caldera, Quarterdeck, etc.) The Linux boys (and IBM, BeOS and others) may simply be reacting to the expectation created in the minds of consumers by Microsoft. However, the result is horrible. Rather than giving OS/2 and Linux a fair chance to compete with Windows, OS/2 and Linux are cut out of most opportunities simply because of bundling by Microsoft. > > In a little while Microsoft will decide that they want all the database profit to themselves. They > will do to IBM (DB/2) and Oracle exactly what they did to Netscape. They will include for "free" > SQL in the server product, thereby excluding both of those other players even though they are > miles ahead of the rather simplistic SQL from Microsoft. Bill Gates is insisting upon the right to force the sale of MS-SQL right now. Listen to him. Bundling is sufficiently powerful enough in the hands of a monopoly to force you to buy a case a bubblegum for heavens sake. Read the article. Many on this list would buy the stupid gum. > > Now after stating that Mettler has a point, I also realize that we cannot do anything about it that > will not require massive intervention and overseeing of Microsoft. False. Sell the OS base 6 or 8 times non exclusively. Do the same with IE and Microsoft networking technology. However, if you really want to regulate the industry, I am sure Congress will go along and give the FTC or some other agency the power to do so. Personally, I think that should be avoided. But, it can only be avoided by removing monopoly power. > However if we give the green > light to Linux, Beos, OS/2, QNX to compete on a level playing field, we can expect that BEOS > will include all the features they can get their hands on, and sell it to the end user at the time of > hardware purchase. Same applies to OS/2 and QNX, and Linux. This would promote all those > OS systems into including lots of applications. I disagree. Applications and subsystems are best when platform independent. Besides, once the Microsoft cases goes on record for unbundling the OS from all utilities, subsystems and applications, that legal case can be used by many companies to require other bundles to be broken as well. There is absolutely no reason why consumers should not be able to pick between 3 or 4 networking solutions available for all platforms. I am sure IBM would unbundle their networking technology and support it on Windows, Linux, BeOS and OS/2. Why not? It is a multibillion dollar market. Lantastic would be there. Novell would have new life. And, even Banyan vines might emerge from the ashes if a fair marketplace existed for such technology. No consumer I know of wants to have the choice of systems limited by a subsystem. That would be pure stupidity. > > To date none of them has as much included in the operating system as OS/2 does. It has a > rather nice IBM Works program (It is exactly the same as Gobe in Beos except it also includes a > fax program (by far the best available, it blows Winfax out of the water), a database, a > spreadsheet, a PIM, Netscape, Web Explorer, a Terminal program, a full suite of TCPIP apps > (that is real TCPIP rather than Msofts hack), plus even more things like Voice Type Dictation > (something Msoft will claim as its own 7 years after IBM included it in OS/2.). Yes. And, OS/2 has priced itself out of the consumer OS market. Bundling of the IBM Works program was also almost required once independent software vendors stopped considering OS/2 as a viable platform for their products. If you unbundled utilities, subsystems and browsers that situation will change. > > And yes it does include network capability to network with Netware, Lantastic, Appletalk, > Microsoft, All TCPIP capable networks, and Decnet, Banyon Vines, IBMnet, (probably others as > well). Sorry. But, Lantastic is no longer available for OS/2. It has never been available for the MAC or BeOS. Appletalk is not available for other platforms. Bundling networking technology all but prevents alternative operating systems from being implemented on one network. Remember that silly trivia question? Personally, I thought the question was a stupid one until it became clear that no one on this list could answer it. It is amazing what you can learn by the silence. > > The green light needed is to separate the operating system from the hardware sale (in fact > rather than calling it an operating system, simply call it "software", as separate from hardware). You can give consumers a choice but you can not really separate software from hardware. Consumers do expect at least a minimum functionality when the take the system home. They need software. However, Microsoft should have no more advantage in that regard than any other. And, applications and utilities should not be bundled with the OS. Even disc compression makes an excellent example. Until Microsoft forced all consumes to buy the Microsoft brand of compression, Stac offered a cross platform capability to compress data files. An OS/2 version was available. A Windows version and even an NT version, as I recall. But, Microsoft forced the sale of a incompatible disc compression (actually two incompatible versions). The market was ruined and Stac went away. When Stac went away, OS/2 was likewise harmed. Bundling is the most powerful weapon Microsoft has against consumers and competitors alike. > > It would allow all the vendors of operating systems to make compliant (hardware wise) cdroms > that would allow users to choose an alternative system. This would allow all vendors to improve > the installation process, and offer unique bundles of applications that might suite the user better > than the Msoft alternative. The prices would be more competitive, the software quality would > improve, the users would have a choice, and freedom might prevail. No choice will exist until you prevent bundling with the monopoly product. > > Although Mettler in my opinion has been tilting at windmills, he is not totally incorrect. He is just > wasting time about a problem that has no easy solutions and in my opinion is unsolvable. Completely untrue. Selling separate products separately is very easy to implement. Even Microsoft already knows how to do that. Everyone knows how to do that. > However separating the hardware from the software not only has benefit to all end users, it also > allows competition back from the non competitive computer industry. If all computer systems > sold in retail stores, must have a price that excludes software, then there would be no need to > monitor Msoft in that regard. simply put, all sales of Microsoft operating systems are done at the > retail level rather than at the OEM level. It would also improve hardware compliance as well, as > an added benefit. Microsoft couldn't complain about this, as it allows them to sell to retailers and > distributors rather than OEMs at a higher gross price. Microsoft should gain even more funds if > they sell to retailers rather than OEMs. Some software must be sold with hardware. No utility, subsystem or application needs to be sold or distributed to anyone. Each individual consumer can decide which utilities, subsystems or applications "they think they need". YOU never need to decide for them. You do not even need to decide the product categories they must buy. I do not suggest bundling any OS with the hardware, but you will either have to have a copy or buy one. > > I can envision distributions of alternative operating systems that are tailored to young kids (lots of > games etc) students, office users, CAD users, Desktop publishers, Video producers, Audio > producers etc etc etc. An operating system supplier might have 4-5 different bundles available > for installation on computers bought at the same time they buy the hardware. You are confused about the difference between an OS and an application. You can offer a choice of operating systems but you never need to bundling any applications with it. Sure, OEMs could offer "game packs", "office packs" or "home packs", etc. But, they should never be bundled with the OS. Again, please distinguish between a bundle which forces the consumers choice and a suite where products are also sold separately. It is illogical to assume that any software must be bundled in order for it to be available for selection. That is pure garbage. Absolutely nothing must be forced upon consumers in order for it to be available. Monopolist may lie about that. But, no product need ever be forced upon consumers for any reason. Period. > > This would open up the market for a number of ISV's that might want to license their programs to > a operating system vendor. Admittedly it does not undo the damage done by Microsoft, but it > does at least offer a competitive opportunity to the alternative operating system suppliers. ISV's should not be limited to finding a OS vendor to bundled their stuff. All software should have a fair and open marketplace and not be limited to bundling deals with monopolists or any other player. > > At any rate, I suggest this as an alternative to Mettlers unbundle everything idea. I have only suggested unbundling utilities, subsystems and applications that have separate identifiable demand. It is extremely easy to make that determination. If not everyone must have it, then it is a separate product. Clearly, not everyone must have a browser. Not everyone has one now. Not every machine has one now. Many millions of machines will never need one. Clearly not everyone must have a networking system. Not everyone has one now. Now every machine has one now. Many millions of machines will never need one. We can easily start with that unbundling and accomplish two very important aspects. 1) the cost of software for a basic machine drops in half overnight 2) those who might want that extra technology could pick and choose the technology best suited for their needs. Hint: If you think you can decide that for anyone without any knowledge of the particular customers needs, you are unqualified to do so. No consultant would be so stupid to claim that. > I say bundle all > you want, but there would be any number of alternative bundles available to the user when > he/she wants to buy a computer. Why in the hell must consumers buy your crap? Do you have a mental problem with allowing consumers to decide what they buy? Do you also advocate that all consumers must buy Green Fords or Pink Cadillacs? Or, only be able to choose between the Green Ford and Pink Cadillac? What kind of logic is that? No one is suggesting bundles must be forced upon auto consumers. Why is that consumers must be forced to buy computer software without regard to their needs? Is there something fundamentally different about computer software? Consumers have a right to buy the car they want in the color and model they want with options they want but when it comes to software it is necessary to deny their rights? That suggestion is pure stupidity. As has been illustrated numerous times, it is unfair and harmful as well. -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 27 11:08:17 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-2.tricreations.com [216.205.16.111]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 352E221B06 for ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 11:08:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.37]) by lamlaw.com ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 11:07:43 -0500 Message-ID: <3867905C.D7C24811@lamlaw.com> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 08:14:20 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Counting References: <199912241556.XAA04301@ms17.hinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dan, I would have to agree with many of your observations. dski@ms17.hinet.net wrote: > > Geoffrey "Wandered Inn" (esoteric@denali.atlnet.com) wrote -- > > > How about we give up trying to convince Mettler regarding any issues on > > bundling. Maybe he will quit bringing it up. Outside of a handful of > > posts, I've gotten little use of the list lately. I don't know why > > Mettler suddenly has so much time on his hands, but he's destroyed the > > purpose of this list. > > He has furthered that purpose greatly. The experience has not been > entirely pleasant, but it has been worthwhile. It has made me examine my > beliefs and motivations, and I won't mind if it continues. > > Not being attached to any particular bundle or bundler, I find the > resistance to Mr. Mettler's statements extraordinary. I don't think he > would have gotten a stronger reaction if he were advocating cannibalism. > This calls for serious reflection. Indeed it does. I have no doubt that Microsoft Corporation takes great pleasure in seeing resistance to the ideas and concepts I have promoted. The suggestion (elsewhere, no names) that I might be paid by Microsoft to post these views is a bit ridiculous. There power is exercised via bundling. Comments coming from Microsoft suggest that they know they would lose in the marketplace without it. And, I would suggest that those who defend bundling while claiming to counter Microsoft are trying to ride their bike backwards and uphill. Microsoft knows it can preclude competition simply be bundling their technology. They have already done so with disc compression, networking technology and most recently internet technologies. And, they also know for a fact they can continue to preclude internet technology in the same fashion. Why any non-Microsoft dependent developer would promote bundling is beyond me. They are only blocking themselves out of key markets for the foreseeable future. They are either excluded from the new software frontier or resolved to being a Microsoft pawn. And, Microsoft will never permit its pawns to be Queened. > > Appraising Microsoft -- indeed, appraising anything -- must ideally > involve appraising ourselves as well. This means understanding ourselves > better -- and that cannot come without also understanding others better. > What assumptions or expectations underlie our positions, the positions of > those we find ourselves allied with, and the positions of those aligned > against us? We must never stop considering these questions. I agree completely. Never stop thinking. > > Now, I'm going to say a few things that may cause many here to recoil and > issue the fiercest denials. I am certain that the monopolist is much > encouraged by most of the reactions to Mr. Mettler's statements. (This is > not to say or imply anything at all about those statements themselves.) > One of the tenets of our age is that we have "arrived," that we have left > behind the misconceptions and delusions of the past. We give those > misconceptions and delusions names that mark them as things of the past, > and we think smugly of how far we have come. I'm not so sure we've come > very far at all. Future historians might very well give the formative > assumptions of our age names like the doctrine of corporate infallibility > and the divine right of CEOs. > > I repeat: Appraising Microsoft means appraising ourselves as well. Are we > so different from those who aided and abetted this monster? Perhaps not. > A look at ourselves might help us understand how Microsoft is able to > ravage entire industries and markets. > > It will soon be Christmas Day, 1999. May those who seek special joy on > this day find it; may all people of good will have their wishes and hopes > fulfilled. Well said. > > Dan Strychalski > Hsinchu, Taiwan, R.O.C. > December 24, 1999 -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 27 11:11:41 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-2.tricreations.com [216.205.16.111]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0175121B06 for ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 11:11:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.37]) by lamlaw.com ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 11:11:07 -0500 Message-ID: <38679115.5C40AB37@lamlaw.com> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 08:17:25 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] Hubble Upgrade References: <19991224175511.74C2B21B17@venice.essential.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit No one around to reboot. Ethical at One of One dot Net wrote: > > Forwarded from Don Tsuchiyama > > By Marcia Dunn > Associated Press > > ...The Hubble's old computer is based on an Intel 386 microchip. The > new one is an Intel 486 - 20 times faster with six times the memory. > Actually, there are three identical computers in the replacement box, > only one of which is used at any given time. Each has two megabytes > of memory. > > "Now that doesn't sound like much in days where everybody talks about > 64 megabytes or 128 megabytes," said Hubble program manager John > Campbell. "But you should keep in mind that we don't do Windows..." > -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 27 11:29:35 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from vcnet.com (mail.vcnet.com [209.239.239.15]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DDE8A21B06 for ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 11:29:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 97945 invoked from network); 27 Dec 1999 16:29:34 -0000 Received: from 1-0-183.adsl.vcnet.com (HELO ?192.168.0.2?) (209.239.242.84) by mail.vcnet.com with SMTP; 27 Dec 1999 16:29:34 -0000 Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 08:29:33 -0800 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Mitch Stone Cc: "am-info" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-Id: <19991227162934.DDE8A21B06@venice.essential.org> --- From a message sent by Lewis A. Mettler on 12/27/99 6:28 AM --- >> I'm pretty suspicious of the cost of choice arguments. We replace our >> cars just about as often as we replace our computers, and cars cost many >> times more then computers. We don't complain about buying a new car; in >> fact we seem to take great joy in it, consumer culture that we are. I >> expect to buy my next car in 2002 or 2003, and by then I hope to have the >> ability to choose something other then gasoline power. It's a choice I >> fully expect to pay for, because all choices have costs. > >Read the bubblegum deal. It is not the cost of hardware that keeps >consumers from switching to Apple. It is the cost of all of the >applications that the customer may already own that will be needed to be >repurchased if the operating system is changed. Irrelevant. All choices have costs, and it matters not how you arrive at those costs, whether it involves hardware, software, car motors or fairy dust. All that matters is the sum at the bottom of the page, and some sort of analysis, either formal or informal, for determining whether the cost of change is a net positive or negative. Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 27 12:05:35 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-2.tricreations.com [216.205.16.111]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EA47121B06 for ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 12:05:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.46]) by lamlaw.com ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 12:04:59 -0500 Message-ID: <38679C72.7F8AA07B@lamlaw.com> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 09:05:54 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems References: <19991227162934.DDE8A21B06@venice.essential.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mitch, All cost factors are indeed relevant. The bubblegum deal was written for the purpose of explaining that the bundled product was not irrelevant. However, the cost to switch away from a monopoly product is indeed relevant. The bubblegum deal permits individual consumers to measure the monopoly power that Microsoft has over them individually. And, it will differ from one individual to another. Maybe you can avoid buying the silly gum. But, many others can not. It can be enormously expensive to switch away from Windows if you are a corporation with hundreds if not thousands of systems. Just look at Boeing. Did they drop Windows when IE was bundled in? As I recall, they did not. Perhaps they can not simply because some of the applications they need to run only come from Windows. Boeing bought the bubblegum. Does Boeing really want thousands of cases of gum? I doubt it. But, they could be forced to buy them anyway as they were forced with IE. Would the market for chewing gum be ruined if Microsoft forced everyone to buy a couple of cases with each PC? I would venture a guess that the gum vending machine at Boeing would be removed. The bubblegum deal does not measure Microsoft's monopoly power for you. But, it does give you yourself the basis so that you can measure the power they have over your choice. At issue is the price Microsoft Corporation could charge for Windows before sales drop off enough to lower the net revenue for Windows. Assuming your need for Windows is typical, you can measure just how much Microsoft can charge for Windows before you switch or go the CP/M route and die. I can begin to tell anyone how much power the monopoly product has over them. Only the individual consumer can assess that. Some can easily switch to Apple, Linux or OS/2. Others simply can not if they wanted to. Some could not switch even if they owned Red Hat stock. The bubble gum deal was written so you can measure Microsoft's monopoly power yourself. Mitch Stone wrote: > > --- From a message sent by Lewis A. Mettler on 12/27/99 6:28 AM --- > > >> I'm pretty suspicious of the cost of choice arguments. We replace our > >> cars just about as often as we replace our computers, and cars cost many > >> times more then computers. We don't complain about buying a new car; in > >> fact we seem to take great joy in it, consumer culture that we are. I > >> expect to buy my next car in 2002 or 2003, and by then I hope to have the > >> ability to choose something other then gasoline power. It's a choice I > >> fully expect to pay for, because all choices have costs. > > > >Read the bubblegum deal. It is not the cost of hardware that keeps > >consumers from switching to Apple. It is the cost of all of the > >applications that the customer may already own that will be needed to be > >repurchased if the operating system is changed. > > Irrelevant. All choices have costs, and it matters not how you arrive at > those costs, whether it involves hardware, software, car motors or fairy > dust. All that matters is the sum at the bottom of the page, and some > sort of analysis, either formal or informal, for determining whether the > cost of change is a net positive or negative. > > Mitch Stone > mstone@vc.net > > _______________________________________________ > Am-info mailing list > Am-info@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info -- Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer) lmettler@LAMLaw.com http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust trial) From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 27 12:29:40 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org Received: from vcnet.com (mail.vcnet.com [209.239.239.15]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4666C21B06 for ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 12:29:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 24763 invoked from network); 27 Dec 1999 17:29:40 -0000 Received: from 1-0-183.adsl.vcnet.com (HELO ?192.168.0.2?) (209.239.242.84) by mail.vcnet.com with SMTP; 27 Dec 1999 17:29:40 -0000 Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 09:29:39 -0800 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Mitch Stone Cc: "AM-INFO" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-Id: <19991227172940.4666C21B06@venice.essential.org> --- From a message sent by Lewis A. Mettler on 12/27/99 6:51 AM --- >Not so when the application you need is not available on all other >platforms. This is quite like saying "I can't sell my Ford Explorer because I need to haul six people at a time and a VW Beetle can't do that." This statement ignores two real possibilities: (1) a vehicle other than the Ford might serve the people-hauling need just as well, if not in exactly the same way, and (2) you might reassess your needs and upon reflection find that you rarely haul six people at once, and that owning a 3-ton SUV is really an extravagance not a necessity. I encourage people to seriously consider their needs and make informed choices, even if those choices come with associated costs, as they all do by definition. Your solution to the above problem would probably be to force Ford to divest itself of the Explorer so that everyone who ever thought they needed one could buy it free of Ford's "monopoly" over the product. I like my way much better. Mitch Stone mstone@vc.net From owner-am-info@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 27 12:44:19 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: am-info@lists.essential.org Received: from lamlaw.com (dns-2.tricreations.com [216.205.16.111]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1DCBB21B06 for ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 12:44:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from lamlaw.com ([206.171.161.46]) by lamlaw.com ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 12:43:42 -0500 Message-ID: <3867A6DB.FE4C5415@lamlaw.com> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 09:50:19 -0800 From: "Lewis A. Mettler" Organization: Law Office of Lewis A. Mettler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: AM-INFO Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Bundling and operating systems References: <19991227172940.4666C21B06@venice.essential.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mitch, Mitch Stone wrote: > > --- From a message sent by Lewis A. Mettler on 12/27/99 6:51 AM --- > > >Not so when the application you need is not available on all other > >platforms. > > This is quite like saying "I can't sell my Ford Explorer because I need > to haul six people at a time and a VW Beetle can't do that." This > statement ignores two real possibilities: (1) a vehicle other than the > Ford might serve the people-hauling need just as well, if not in exactly > the same way, and (2) you might reassess your needs and upon reflection > find that you rarely haul six people at once, and that owning a 3-ton SUV > is really an extravagance not a necessity. If you have alternatives there is no problem nor any ability to force the sale of unwanted products via bundling. But, many applications are available only on Windows. If you need on