[Am-info] level the playing field

[Mike Stephen]

On Fri, 07 Jan 2000 05:04:59 -0800, Lewis A. Mettler wrote:

>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.

Please do not pollute my request for discussions regarding the hardware/software bundle with your suggestion that 
we all separate what we might think is operating system and non operating system parts.  If you can get more than 
two people to agree what is and what is not operating system, then you have done better than all the newsgroups 
over the past 10 years.  Your suggestion can never be implemented.  Can we go on with other alternatives than 
unbundle the utilities for the so called operating system?  Please!  Your suggestions are not only laughed at 
here because they can never be implemented, but they are also being laughed at everywhere else.  Can you stop 
playing this skipping record again and again?  The genie is out of the bottle.....Pandora has opened the box....
The cats out of the bag.  We cannot hope to go back.....  WE just need other software vendors to be allowed to 
compete.  Please do not use this subject line to advertise your views that everyone should be given a 1 and a 0 
to assemble their own.  Lets try to discuss solutions to the problem that are easily monitored and require a 
minimal amount of supervision.

Read the freaking examination question yourself!  But please keep it to yourself!



>
>
>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)
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Am-info mailing list
>Am-info@lists.essential.org
>http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info

>From the Desk of Mike Stephen