Here's a crazy, late-night thought for you -- Farber may have just lost them the case!
Recall his testimony, where he says:
28. None of the above denies the possible convenience or preference of some users for "one stop shopping" for bundled products such as the current version of Windows 98 sold as one product by Microsoft. Those OEMs and retail end users who may find this convenience outweighs any technical inefficiencies described here can certainly still choose to buy Windows 98 in the form it now exists. But only the availability of an unbundled version of Windows 98 will cure the difficulties which arise for many OEMs, application developers and retail end users who may find too burdensome the problems arising from their inability to substitute different functions and applications (such as the Web browser) for use with only parts of what is now sold as Windows
Here he has conceded what will be the essence, I am sure, of Microsoft's case on appeal, that at least some consumers find the "one-stop" bundled version preferable.
He talks in absolute terms about the benefits to other consumers of offering an unbundled version, but I challenge you to show me anywhere in his testimony where he shows that those benefits outweigh the costs to Microsoft of providing it. Given what we have just discussed about the importance of the relative costs and benefits of different technical configurations and the difficulty of making such comparisons, I question whether he can even make such a comparison meaningfully.
But, be that as it may, if all Microsoft has to do is show that there is a plausible benefit to bundling, irrespective of costs, and if it can show plausibility by producing some credible evidence of the benefit, well, here's that evidence, right in Farber's direct testimony!
I know: this is a crazy thought. But, it's late, and I'm punchy, so humor me and let me know what you think. :) |
