[Am-info] level the playing field

[Lewis A. Mettler]

You do not hold a vote and then force all consumers to buy purple cars
if that is the popular choice.  If consumers do not all agree then you
must provide the appropriate choices to consumers.

You absolutely do not force some consumers to buy products that other
consumers might want.

You do not give up your right to pick and choose what you need.

Why in the hell do you insist that others do that?

In a competitive marketplace, no company can refuse to offer viable and
desirable options to consumers.  They simply will not sell products if
they refuse.

What would happen to Ford sales now if they say you can only get them in
"black"?  Ford goes bankrupt.  Why?  Why would that bankrupt Ford? 
Simply because not everyone wants a black car and they can buy a Chevy
in the color of their choice.

A monopolist such as Microsoft forces the sale of IE without any loss of
sales.

It is not fair in either case for the seller to limit appropriate
choices.  Period.

Ford can not get away with it simply because of competition.  Microsoft
forces the sale of networking and internet technologies simply because
it has a monopoly.

Your issue about deciding what should or should not be in a product is
not relevant.  No one needs to decide that anymore than they need to
decide what color car everyone must buy.

The only fair way to market is to offer consumers reasonable choices and
LET THEM DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES INDIVIDUALLY.   You do not vote or hold
any referendum.  Neither do you look to see what they bought last time
and make them buy that again.

Only monopolists and dictators think your way.

In any competitive market, your thinking will fail miseably. You will go
broke.  And, you will go broke because you fail to offer a range of
products that permits consumers to buy what they need when other
companies do precisely that.

I find it amazing how stupid some people can be.  Some people do not
understand the basic economic differences between monopoly markets and
competitive ones.

In competitive markets, no seller and no buyer decides anything for
everyone.  Yet, you see on this list (time and time again) the argument
that someone must decide in advance just what products consumers must
buy.  No one needs nor should do that.

And you absolutely can not make that determination by looking at a
monopoly marketplace.  A monopoly marketplace is controlled and dictated
by the monopolist.  Therefore, no conclusion can be reached whatsoever
about what the consumer might or might not want.  In a monopoly market,
the consumer if forced to buy what the monopolists wants to sell and
sales and/or products have little or nothing to do with what consumers
might want.

In case you are still slow at figuring this all out, cars come in
different colors, models, makes and configurations simply because
competition exists.  Computer hardware comes in different colors, boxes,
makes and configurations simply because competition exists.

All consumers buy Windows simply because competition does not exist. 
Consumers are forced to buy networking from Microsoft and internet
technologies from Microsoft simply because competition does not exist.

Competition does not exist simply because Microsoft is willing and able
to preclude it.  And, does do so.

No body needs to nor should be deciding what is or is not part of any
product.  A free, fair and open marketplace will do that itself if it
exists.  Microsoft prevents that from being the case.  Unbundling
products permits competition to return.  Untieing products will also
permit competition to return.  

As long as bundling is permitted for key products, Microsoft's monopoly
will be maintained indefinately.  If you support bundling, you support
Microsoft Corporation.  I do not care what you claim to be or
represent.  If you support bundling, you support Microsoft.

It might be you are not intelligent enough to know it.  But, when Bill
Gates threatened Mr. Clark with "bundling" internet technology, he
proved he was.


Mike Stephen wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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)