Why $35 less for Windows 7 without IE?

Well think about it a little bit.

Does Microsoft think that Windows 7 without IE would be worth less to the consumer? What do you think they would say?

Clearly Microsoft would say that the Windows 7 with IE is worth more than Windows 7 without it right? How much more is the question.

How much cheaper must Windows 7 without IE be priced before the sales might split 20-80? 80% do not include IE. 20% do include IE.

How much less do you think? What is the magic number?

The EU could start at a $35 differential. And then if the 80% without IE is not reached, require that amount to be increased to say $40 or $45. I seriously doubt a discount higher than $45 retail would be required before substantial numbers of consumers option out of the IE version.

At $45 less to the retail consumer, it is fairly understandable that consumers will take the option not to include IE, right?

But, of course, we could guess all day long and still not come up with the correct number. At least we would not be in agreement because it is an unknown.

So maybe the EU Commission needs to put into place a process whereby it can adjust the retail differential to achieve a given distribution percentage.

What about controlling the price post sale? What about downloads or even automatic upgrades?

Interestingly enough from an economic standpoint the control of downloads or upgrades may not be as important. Controlling the retail price at the OEM might be sufficient. If an OEM is required to offer a system sans IE for $35 less, it is entirely possible that OEMs will not be so interested in putting IE back in for all those systems, right? I mean, they all want to sell a higher priced product because they work on markups. But, a $35 less price is a nice advertising point. And, they could include FireFox?, Chrome or Safari, right? And they could even charge a small amount for some of the alternative browsers.

And besides, that affords a $35 cushion for any consumer who wants to buy IE. After all they got a $35 discount. (It is important that they know that too). And if they want to re-spend that money on IE they should have the right to do so. Either at the time they buy their system or even later in time. They would even have $35 to spend if Microsoft charged that amount for a download, right? Or, even if other browsers began to charge for downloads.

What if Microsoft offered free downloads too?

You can bet that Firefox and perhaps Google will continue with free downloads. Opera may be able to go back to a small fee. But, what if Microsoft met the competition with free downloads of IE? As long as IE is not required by Microsoft in order to get updates or other services that might still work. But, initially there is so much software that is dependent upon Microsoft Internet technology (IE) that a free price initially for IE downloads would preclude any ability for alternative technology to be able to substitute. So, for a period of time, Microsoft may have to be forced to charge for IE even if downloaded or installed during an upgrade. And Microsoft certainly must be required to actually remove all IE technology from the OS.

Therefore, initially, Microsoft must be forced to charge $35 or so for IE regardless of how it is acquired. Besides the consumer got a $35 discount when they bought their system so no one should complain, right? The system costs $35 less if taken without IE and Microsoft charges $35 if you get IE. What is wrong with that? (Clearly some idiots will still claim that the consumer must be denied the option. Maybe because they like IE? Screw those idiots they get their choice but insist that others can not make their own choice. Microsoft salesmen no doubt.)

Do not be so stupid as to ignore the economics in the solution.

An entire market providing free products is not a healthy sign in the long run. It simply is not. And it does not matter whether products are downloaded without cost or bundled in at no itemized cost. And that is not corrected by distributing multiple browsers either. A entire market consisting of free products is a clear sign of illegal manipulation. And that is particularly true for a key product that so many claim is essential. A browser may be essential for many. IE is not. So many people claim that a browser is essential when what they are really arguing is that IE is essential. Of course that not only deceptive but also false.

Consumers can only vote with their money.

If money is removed, the consumer is removed.

And you can not remove the consumer without causing enormous harm. (Just try to remove money or choice from sex and see what you get. It is called rape.)

To put this firmly back into the rape analogy, do you want a community of rapists or prostitutes?

Clearly many would say that they do not want a community of prostitutes. And that is understandable. But, consumers do need browsers (or at least many think they do). So if the choice is between rapists running the neighborhood or prostitutes, which do you choose? Which does Microsoft require?

If Microsoft bundles IE, they are suggesting rapists should run the community. And that would be them.

Consumers would clearly prefer prostitutes. And why is that? And your answer is key.

If you have nothing but prostitutes at least individual consumers can abstain from sex altogether. Or, at least they can pick and choose.

Pick and choose or the ability to abstain is absolutely essential or you will never have a fair and open marketplace.

A lot of individuals have technical knowledge of these issues. Fewer have an economic understanding of what is required for a market to be fair and open. And, almost no one has a legal understanding of the issues. Some lawyers even lie in public in order to deceive the public as to the legal issues. That jerkhead who claimed that the DOJ failed to prove its case against Microsoft is an example. Sounds just like the lawyers for Microsoft that got up on the courthouse steps and claimed that no admissible evidence was introduced against Microsoft. (Funny how when it came to the appeal they never mentioned that claim.) Yet, today you still find so-called lawyers misrepresenting the legal results of the antitrust litigation in the US. I said the court decisions not the fake settlement. The idiots at Microsoft claim they are in compliance with US law when all they are even trying to do is comply with the fake settlement. Settlements NEVER make the law. Complying with a settlement is not the same as complying with the law.

Yes, several issues were remanded back to the trial court in the Microsoft antitrust trial. Many were not. But, the illegality of commingling code was determined by the appellate court. That issue was appealed to the US Supreme Court and that court refused to hear the case. So the result is that commingled code between the Microsoft OS and IE is illegal as decided by the courts. The DOJ refused to enforce the law of the Microsoft antitrust case. And that my friend is very different than claiming that the DOJ failed to prove their case. The DOJ refused to enforce the law plain and simple. It is the difference between not committing murder and the sheriff refusing to arrest the suspect caught in the act. The court of appeals did decide that murder (commingling) was committed and proven to be committed. The sheriff (DOJ) refused to require the illegal acts to cease. The trade press can not even get this right.

But, the economic issues must also be resolved. If they are not, the market will not be fair nor open. And consumers will be harmed indefinitely.

The only way to avoid ongoing consumer harm is to permit and indeed encourage complete technology substitution. And that requires that all of IE be deleted or at least subject to removal by the OEM, customer or either. Currently no one can delete the illegal code.

And from an economic standpoint it is essential that a price differential be established and maintained for any application sold or distributed by the monopolist, Microsoft Corporation. If that is not accomplish, consumers will not benefit from any solution. This may be easiest to accomplish at the retail level by monitoring and enforcing the OEM making sure that systems with and without the offending code by sold at different prices and be readily available. (Of course Microsoft is acting to prevent any price difference from being exposed to the consumer.)

Notice if you will that Microsoft has consistently acted to prevent legal, economic and technology substitution.

Is there a price differential between the OS with IE and the OS alone? No.

Is there a compliance with the US Antitrust laws as decided in the Microsoft case in regard to commingled code? No.

Is there a possibility to substitute Microsoft technology? No. Piling on is not substitution. Substitution requires that all of IE be omitted. Not just hiding icons or removing a shell script. And packaging alternative browsers does not aid in the key substitution either. If you are forced to buy a Ford every time you shop for a car, being able to buy a Chevy as well does not make the auto industry fair or competitive. What it does do is force Chevy to sell their cars for a lot less money because everyone already has a new Ford. (And of course, Ford will claim that everyone benefits from their new car, right?)

These three factors must be taken into account in order to protect consumers and give them the right to decide what technology they use. Leave one out and it will not protect consumers. That is why the fake US settlement failed. And it is why the earlier EU resolution in regard to the media player failed. One element was missing or completely ignored.

All Microsoft has to do is prevent one factor from being present and it will continue to not only dominate but maintain its monopolies. Both those that may have been achieved legally and those that have been achieved illegally with the help of the US DOJ. And it will not matter much if a superior product or service is available even if free. You had to buy the Ford. Do you care if a Chevy is free? You can not get the Chevy without first buying the Ford. And the Ford is over priced.

All three factors. And do not forget that. Product substitution must be possible and an option available to all. An economic differential must be enforced in regard to separate products. And, the laws must be complied with including the elimination of commingled code.

Simply put the laws between the US and EU are not that different at all. Whether or not the law is actually enforced however can make and does make a huge difference.

For whatever reasons, the US DOJ refused to enforce the antitrust laws against Microsoft. It did so by agreeing to a fake settlement.

Perhaps the EU Commission will not refuse to enforce the law in the EU. But, in the past it too has failed to do so. The media player is a case on point. With the media player it required the separation of the product but had the ignorance to not know that economic factors must also play a role. Ask an economist before you act.

I will say it again for the slow learners. Economics, technology separation (and substitution) and the law. Ignore any one and a monopoly can easily be maintained. Just ask Microsoft. Or course, they will just lie and claim they are in compliance with the law even when their own lawyers can not be so stupid to think that. After all, they appealed the commingling illegality to the US Supreme Court. So they must have understood that Microsoft was violating the US laws. But, what about the economics and the product separation and substitution? Oh, we think everyone clearly benefits from being raped by Microsoft branded products. And Microsoft can accomplish that by economic manipulation, ignoring the law and precluding consumers from substituting technology and by refusing to separate key products.

It is not rocket science. It is economics, technology and law. And you must understand all three and know how they relate or you will be raped. Continuously.

And if you are an authority and fail to understand these issues, you will fail to do your job. Or, as in the case with the US DOJ, you might understand the issues but simply refuse to enforce the law because your objective is to help Microsoft establish another monopoly product.