[Am-info] level the playing field

[Lewis A. Mettler]

If you want to buy parts you can buy hardware without software.  I have
been doing that for the last 15 years or so.  But, that option is not
practical for most consumers.  It might be for corporate consumers since
many of them wipe the machines and install fresh anyway (leaving off
what they do not want to install).

But, most importantly is that ALL consumers be given a choice what they
buy and that includes all subsystems and applications that are not
required for the computer to have a useful function.

That means unbundling networking technology, internet technology, disc
utilities, file compression and other silly applications such as games. 
If Microsoft wants to sell that crap they can compete fairly and openly
for the business.

Otherwise, Windows is simply overpriced for everyone.  Right now it
costs about 4 times its competitive value.  

Leaving the Windows bundle intact means nothing.  Consumers must be
given their right to pick and choose the technology "they think they
need".  That simply means that if they think they need Lantastic
networking, the Microsoft brand must not be included.  Period.  If they
think they need Navigator, then Internet Explorer must not be included. 
If they think they need Stac disc compression (compatible across NT,
OS/2 and DOS) then the Microsoft brand must not be included.

The Microsoft brand is never required in order for the OS to run and
therefore should never be forced upon consumers.

Read the examination question again and focus upon the affect bundling
has on increasing barriers to entry for all computer software markets. 
If you want superior technology you can not bundle.  If you want to
force the sale of your brand of technology, you insist upon bundling. 
That is why those who argue in support of bundling are only promoting
their own products and ignoring consumers.


Mike Stephen wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 6 Jan 2000 16:26:16 -0500, Paul Rickard wrote:
> 
> >lmettler@lamlaw.com
> >
> >>A complete divestiture is best for the industry.  Complete unbundling is
> >>a far second.
> >
> >
> >   Welcome to my side. Lets work on the best (also easiest to figure out)
> >solution rather than continually wasting time on the 'far second' and
> >much more complicated issue. Divesture. Personally, I would be happy with
> >a forced selloff of all telecom investments made since the beginning of
> >1998. Do that, publicize OEM contracts/fees and then clean up the
> >language of EULAs. Those are not difficult to do, and they would have the
> >most impact. If Judge Jackson forced Microsoft to do those three easy
> >things, we could all pack up our anti-Microsoft efforts and go do more
> >productive things. Anybody on the list have a real problem with my
> >suggestions?
> 
> Yup..... It still means that consumers will have no choice of operating system on the new computer they buy.  If
> all computers were available without any operating system, it would tell the consumer exactly how much cost the
> so called free software really is, as well as allowing other vendors to put complete packages together on the
> shelf.  What you are proposing simply makes windows the only viable operating system today and into the future.
> I don't want to see Windows as the only choice.
> 
> Simply make all hardware vendors allow users to purchase hardware without paying for an operating system.
> 
> >From the Desk of Mike Stephen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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)