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, w