[Am-info] level the playing field

[Lewis A. Mettler]

No OEM needs to offer or support any combination of products they do not
wish to offer or support.

There is not cost associated with permitting OEMs complete and total
freedom.

It is just like automobiles and computer hardware.  There is no need for
you or anyone to decide what is or is not offered.

As a monopolist, Microsoft does that to preclude competition.  The most
effective way it does that is via bundling.

Joe Moore wrote:
> 
> "Lewis A. Mettler" wrote:
> (snip)
> > > > > > 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.
> 
> Everyone has a right to try to sell whatever they want, just like
> everyone has a right to try to buy whatever they want.
> 
> Some things are illegal to sell, and some things are illegal to buy.
> 
> > > 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.
> The Spearmint Gum Company has only as much recourse as the law allows.
> Surely you know this.
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> The judge will say "That is fine, but it is illegal.  Here is your
> punishment."  End of case.  If the punishment is not severe enough (like
> the previous consent decree) it will not deter illegal activity.
> 
> Microsoft has made it clear that it does not care what is legal and what
> is illegal.  They choose to do illegal acts, despite the punishment,
> because it is profitable in the short term.
> 
> > > > 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.
> No, you advocate requiring that all possible products and combination of
> products be available.  That is requiring what sellers can produce.
> 
> > 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?
> Yes.  Do you understand that people choose to break the law?  Unbundling
> will not prevent companies from choosing this.
> 
> > You can sell any legal product you want.  But, you can not prevent
> > others from doing the same.
> You can also sell illegal products.  But if you do, the law should
> punish you.  You can prevent others from selling their products (legal
> or illegal -- All software is a monopoly bundle) but if you do, the law
> should punish you.
> 
> > 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.
> And illegal acts should be punished.  But companies and people sometimes
> do illegal acts if it is profitable for them.
> 
> > > > 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.
> You do.  You claim that all possible combinations of software should be
> available to all consumers.  That's a combinatorially huge number of
> configurations to create, support, sell, and maintain.
> 
> > I only insist that a monopolist can not prevent others from selling
> > their products.
> Well, I'm now convinced that you don't read anyone's posts, including
> your own.
> 
> > Judge Jackson will not tell Microsoft what they must design.
> Then why do you?  Why do you get to decide that Networking must be
> redesigned out of the operating system?
> 
> > 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.
> Then why do you insist on telling them that they must sell Windows a
> certain way?  (your way)
> 
> > > > 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.
> All software is a monopoly, and all software is a bundle.  String 'em
> Up!
> 
> > > > > > 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.
> You want fries with that?
> 
> > > 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.
> Or I can buy the bundle, return the fries and Coke, and get it for
> almost a buck and a half less.  How long would Burger King survive this
> way?
> 
> > 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.
> Burger King is not as stupid as your rebate suggestion.  That is why
> when they offer their $0.99 whopper deal the price of a combo does not
> go down.
> 
> Your suggestion to offer a $35 rebate to Windows purchasers who don't
> want Microsoft networking is just as stupid as asking Burger King to
> rebate the cost of Arby's Curly fries from your combo.
> 
> > You pick.  Burger King does not have any monopoly power over you.
> Even if they did, your suggestion that they rebate a competitor's price
> would be stupid.
> 
> > 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.
> Yes, and this is relevant how?
> 
> > > > 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.
> If they sell illegal products, the law should punish them.  They do not
> have to sell products your way, or offer a rebate for the cost of a
> competitor's product.
> 
> Microsoft has been selling an illegal product for 5 years now.  It looks
> like you can.  Hopefully, the law will punish them.
> 
> --Joe
> 
> --
> IBM's vision is apparently to make IBM hardware "scream with Microsoft
> software" --The Register,
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/990927-000003.html
> 
> I have visions of screaming with (at and about) Microsoft software, too.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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)