[Am-info] level the playing field

[Lewis A. Mettler]

Joe Moore wrote:
> 
> "Lewis A. Mettler" wrote:
> > Joe Moore wrote:
> > > "Lewis A. Mettler" wrote:
> > > > Sorry. You do not decide how many might want any utility or application.
> > > I did not try to.  I simply asked "How many people transfer hard drives
> > > between multiple OSs"?  That would be an upper limit to the usefulness
> > > (and market size) of cross-platform disc compression software.
> >
> > Have you heard of dual booting?  A boot manager from IBM, Lilo (Linux)
> > and System Commander all permit you to install multiple systems on the
> > same hardware.  If disc compression is supported on multiple platforms
> > the user can benefit from that technology regardless of which OS they
> > boot up at any time.  Stac provided that benefit until it was precluded
> > from the market by illegal Microsoft bundling.  Microsoft's idea is to
> > write and force sell two different compression schemes so that not even
> > NT and Windows 98 can both share the same compressed files.
> >
> > That is just one example of truly stupid engineering by a monopolist and
> > bundling which at the same time precludes superior technology from the
> > marketplace.
> 
> Yes, dual booting is probably the only use of this.  IIRC, Stac still
> required a separate license for each platform it was run on.

That is a choice that all consumers should have.  They do not have to
pick it.

> 
> Microsoft has stupid management.  They make stupid engineering
> decisions.  So?
> 
> How many consumers use disc compression now anyway?

Then unbundle it and drop the price.  Or, make it work on multiple
platforms.  But, clearly forcing all consumers to buy crappy subsystems
is sick.

Microsoft precluded superior technology from the market AND forced the
sale of inferior software.  There is no benefit to having Windows 98 and
NT use incompatible disc compression.

Unless you know you want to screw consumers and harm them directly. 
Which they did.

> 
> > > > Neither do you bundle crap in order to force their decision.
> > > I'm not bundling anything.
> > Good.  Then you support unbundling.  And, you support being able to buy
> > the technologies you want to implement instead of what the monopolist
> > wants to force you to buy, right?
> I do not agree that unbundling is the end all and be all of antitrust
> remedies that should be levied against Microsoft.  Unbundling is neither
> necessary, nor is it sufficient.

Unbundling is in fact required.  Bundling is what removed Netscape. 
Bundling is what removed Caldera.  Bundling is what kept Novell out of
the PC.  Bundling is what subdued Lantastic.

Bundling is the primary means to preclude competition.  Others efforts
help.  But, until you prevent bundling, nothing will matter.  All
consumers are forced to buy all significant software of the Microsoft
brand precluding anyone they want from competing.

Read the examination question.  If you still do not understand
marketing, monopolies, bundling, barriers to entry and antitrust law
read my web site.  Read the findings of facts. Read the proposed
conclusions of law as submitted by the DOJ.

> 
> > > > IT IS NOT YOUR CHOICE.
> > > > IT IS NOT MICROSOFT'S CHOICE EITHER.
> > > The seller decides what to sell.  The buyer decides what to buy.  That's
> > > what makes a market.
> > False.  The seller does not decide what to sell at all.  The seller can
> > only sell what is legal to sell.
> 
> WHAT?????????? The seller does not decide what to sell?  The seller can
> sell whatever they want, if they are willing to be responsible for it.

Nope.  There is no such right at all.  No company can sell anything if
doing so violates the law or violates the rights of others.  That right
does not exist at all.

The seller can "want" to sell anything they "want".  But, they do not
have that right at all.  They do not have a right to design, develop,
distribute, market or support unless no laws are broken and no rights
held by others are violated.

> They can sell a kilo of cocaine in every box, if they decide to.

Sorry.

They can force you to buy bubblegum but only until Spearmint Gum Company
stops them.

> They'll (hopefully) go to jail for a long time if they decide this, but
> the decision is theirs.

You must separate what they want to do with what they can do.

I may want to make Ford cars but I can not legally do so.

You may want to sell drugs, but that is illegal as well.

You may want to design and develop all kinds of products but you will be
prevented from doing so if laws are violated or others stop you for
violating their rights.

What you "want" to do is simply not relevant in any way.  The judge will
say "that is fine, but you can't do that".  End of case.



> 
> Good thing we have you to decide what the sellers can sell.

I do not decide that.  I am not a judge.  Judge Jackson is and will
decide that for Microsoft Corporation.

> 
> > But, the real suggestion you made which is false is that buyers decide
> > what they buy.  That is false in a monopoly.
> Err, no shit.  But even in a competitive market, not all consumers will
> see the bundles they want.

That might be.  But, I feel pretty sure you can buy the model, make,
color, trim and options you want for your next new car.  Maybe not
precisely as you might imagine but pretty close.

With computer hardware as well as automobiles you have enormous choice. 
With the Microsoft monopoly all choices have been prevented.

You are told what you must buy.

If you can tell the difference, you most likely never will be able to. 
So. You might just as well let someone else pick your clothes, food and
everything else you buy.


> 
> > Only if you have multiple sellers and multiple buyers in fair and open
> > market can buyers and sellers "make a market".
> >
> > In a monopoly, that is NEVER the case.  In a monopoly, the monopolist
> > decides for everyone including you.  In a monopoly there is no decision
> > made by any buyer.  Indeed, not one buyer has decided to buy IE.  Most
> > have been fooled and defrauded into doing so.  But, since no one can buy
> > Windows or Apple without it, it is not a decision made by the buyer at
> > all.  That decision simply does not exist.  If you vote and find only
> > one name on the ballot, you are the subject of a dictatorship. Only
> > fools think they count.  They do not. You are being told who to vote
> > for.
>      > /dev/null
> 
> > > > You do not decide what anyone must buy.  No body does.
> > > I decide what I must buy.  Your statement is false.
> > > > Do you understand that basic principal?
> > > Yes.
> > Then why are you trying to decide what others can or can not buy?
> I am not.  You are trying to decide what others can or can not sell.

Absolutely not. I openly promote the availability of all possible
products.  I am absolutely not precluding any possible combination of
products you might conceive of.

I only do not permit a monopolist to decide for you or me.  That is
illegal.

> 
> > Then why are you trying to decide what others want or do not want to
> > buy?
> It is perfectly normal to decide what others want to buy.  Sellers do it
> all the time.  It's called market research.

You can offer all the products you want.  What is illegal is preventing
others from offering their products.

In other words, precluding other competitors is illegal.

Do you understand the difference?

You can sell any legal product you want.  But, you can not prevent
others from doing the same.

In other words, stopping Netscape, Stac, Lantastic, Caldera, Novel and
Sun is illegal.

Focus upon the preclusion of competitors.  If you do that, you have an
antitrust problem.

> 
> > Do you decide which clothes they buy and wear?  Do you decide which
> > foods they eat?  Do you decide where they live?  Do you think you make
> > any decision for anyone not your responsibility?  If not, then why in
> > the hell do you insist upon deciding what computer software someone must
> > buy, install, maintain and use?
> No, No, No, and No.  I am not.  Why in the hell do you insist upon
> deciding what computer software someone must create, sell, and maintain?

I do not.

I only insist that a monopolist can not prevent others from selling
their products.

Judge Jackson will not tell Microsoft what they must design.  He will
only tell them what they can not design.  He will not tell them what
they must sell.  He will only tell them what they can not sell.  And,
that is a bundle.

Do you understand the difference?  One is positive.  The other is
negative.  There are very very different.

> 
> > That is none of your business.  And, you have absolutely no right to
> > force any sale of any product upon anyone for any reason.  It is illegal
> > to do so.
> I do not have monopoly power in the computer software market.  Therefore
> it is _not_ illegal.  You are wrong.

If you do not have a monopoly you simply can not force the sale in the
first place.

If you do have a monopoly, you can.

I can not force you to buy Spearmint gum unless I bundle it with
Windows.  They I can.

I can force you to buy a cell phone if I bundle it with Windows.

That is why Bill Gates told Mr. Clark that if anyone entered the windows
market with a browser, he (Microsoft) would just bundle IE.

Both Bill Gates and Mr. Clark know precisely what I am talking about.  

> 
> > > > Do you understand that you can buy whatever food you want to eat?
> > > > Do you understand that you can buy whatever cloths you want to wear?
> > > Actually, the food market has bundles, too.  Go into Burger King and say
> > > "I'd like a Whopper combo, but since I don't like french fries or onion
> > > rings, don't give them to me, but instead take off $1.19 from the cost
> > > of the combo, which is the retail price of the fries if purchased
> > > separately."  Let me know if it works.
> > You can buy burgers without fries or onions.  That was my point.
> Yes, you can.  But your unbundling suggestions that consumers get a
> rebate of the RETAIL price of a competitor's product is rediculous.  Try
> going to Burger King and getting them to take off $1.29 since that's
> what McDonalds is charging for their fries.

I suggest you ask consumers which they prefer.  If they want to leave
the product at the store and take the discount, then that is what they
should be offered.

In fact, Non-monoplists know that they need to offer choices that
consumers want.

Monopolists know for a fact that they can force consumers to buy
anything they want to sell including cases of bubblegum.

> 
> Continuing the Burger King suggestion:
> After they give you back the $1.19 because you didn't get fries, you
> remember that you have a can of coke in the trunk of your car, which you
> could drink.  Ah hah, I'll just get a rebate on the coke.  Another
> $1.19.  At this point, you have been refunded $2.38 from your $2.99
> combo meal.  Meaning that you have paid $.61 for your Whopper which
> normally retails for $2.09.

The burger is available separately.  Buy it if you want.  The burger
stand alone already costs less.  That is why they offer it.

Burger King is not as stupid as you appear to be.  They know that hungry
people do not all want to eat fries and drink a coke.  That is why they
offer to sell you coffee (navigator) instead.  That is why they offer to
sell you just a burger or just the fries.

You pick.  Burger King does not have any monopoly power over you.

Microsoft, on the other hand, can and does make a fool out of consumers
by forcing them to buy cases of bubblegum (Internet Explorer) regardless
if they want gum, have gum, can chew gum or not.


> 

> > No one is forcing you to eat onions. (except maybe your mommy)
> Hmm... Maturity.

Mommies do control what their kids eat.

Monopolies do control what you buy.  Microsoft can force you to buy
cases of gum if they want to.  Since you failed to tell anyone about
choice #2 or #3, I assume you bought the gum.

> 
> > > > Do you understand that you make those decisions for yourself?  (unless
> > > > your mother still does)
> > > Err... So you're implying that my mother dresses me and picks out my
> > > food?  My, how mature.
> > It was your idea to tell someone what they must do.
> Nope, you're telling someone what they must do.  You're telling the
> seller what they must sell.

No. I am telling them that they can not sell illegal products.  They do
not have to sell anything at all if they do not want to.  They just can
not conduct illegal sales just like you can not sell illegal copies of
Windows 98.  It is illegal.  It does not matter if you want to do that
or not.  You can not.

> 
> > I am not telling you what to do.  You are forcing others to buy
> > bubblegum.
> Nope, you are forcing sellers to.

Nope.  I have forced on one to sell anything at all.  In fact, they can
stop.

What they can not do is sell illegally.  Microsoft can not sell drugs
either without FDA approval.  It is the same thing.  What you may want
to do is not even important.

> 
> > Read the bubblegum deal and tell everyone if you buy the gum, switch
> > your OS or stop.
> It doesn't matter what I do.  I do not try to speak for other consumers.

You are trying to force the sale of the bubblegum (internet explorer).

100% of all PC computer buyers are being forced.  Apple or Intel.  You
are forcing them to buy the gum.

-- 
Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer)
lmettler@LAMLaw.com
http://www.lamlaw.com/ (detailed review of the Microsoft antitrust
trial)