United States v. Microsoft Corporation; Public Comments; Notice (MTC-00032329 - MTC-00033867)
Federal RegisterMay 3, 2002
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29796-30305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-5355]
MTC-00032329
From: John Hatch
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/14/01 10:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Hatch
3105 Sea View Court
Las Vegas, NV 89117
December 14, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final
approval is clearly in the public interest.
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the
litigation would finally be exhausted.
The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors,
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products.
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors.
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years,
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and
compliance with the settlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even
covers issues and software that were not part of the original
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to
comply with the settlement.
This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes.
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle,
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
John Hatch
MTC-00032330
From: Cleburne Medlock
To: DOJvsMS
Date: 12/14/01 12:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs:
First, allow me to introduce myself briefly. I, C. W. Medlock,
have worked in the ``Software'' field in a professional
capacity for more than 47 years. (My first course in
``programming'' was taken in 1950 at Purdue University.) I
have worked at such stalwarts of this industry as IBM
(1960-1966), NCR (1975-1977), etc. At IBM, I was one of
the six Architects of IBM's Operating System 360 (``OS/
360''), one of the world's first true Operating Systems
(1963-64). Also at IBM (1963), I was one of the six members of
the joint IBM/SHARE (a users group) team that developed the advanced
Programming Language One (PL/I) Although the latter language has
fallen into disuse due to more modern advances in such
``standard'', non?-proprietary languages a COBOL, PL/I
indeed was a most powerful language (for both scientific and
business computing) that I believe set the stage for the more modern
versions of COBOL and other more modern scientific computing
languages.
I, from 1982 to 1999, was proprietor of my own software
``home-business'' Pro/Am Software, where I developed and
marketed worldwide several software ``tools'' for use by
the programmer. It was here, as a ``lone survivor'' of a
great group of Information Age professionals, that I first
encountered the threats laid down by Microsoft's failure to disclose
much-needed facts that would allow entrepreneurs such as myself to
develop tools that would directly or indirectly interface with their
``Windows'' Operating System. (This does NOT mean that I
necessarily would have required the source code of Windows, but only
a FULL disclosure of Microsoft's file formats, OS interfaces,
details of invoking OS functions, etc. This should include such
disclosure of these interfaces for all of Microsoft's other products
which interface with Windows, as competitors and other users have a
need for this information just as well.) A case might easily be made
by Microsoft that they should have the full protection of their
intellectual property such as source code, where distribution of
same would allow many other (foreign?) businesses to easily make
copies of same, and, via suitable modifications, each apply their
own ``Trademarks'', ``Copyright'' notifications,
etc. However, I cannot imagine a case in any court where it could be
argued that it would be harmful to a legitimate, non-monopolistic
business for them to disclose FULLY the interfaces needed by ALL
users (developers and ordinary users alike) to fully use and expand
all features of Windows and all of it's associated Microsoft
Products! (I can quote more than a few examples of where I and other
developers were not able to obtain needed information about files
and other data formats that were needed to allow us to develop
products which would enlarge the capabilities of the Windows
operating system, thereby seemingly even strengthening its place in
the market.) Such a relatively ``open architecture'' has
indeed been the norm with such stalwart operating-system providers
as IBM, etc. (After all, the original IBM Personal Computer had even
it's Hardware and Software totally in the public domain. Microsoft
should at the very least provide the ``circuit diagram''
of their software, so that it could even be repaired more easily,
including making expansions and improvements thereto!)
The provisions in any Settlement with Microsoft should NOT be
limited to the interfaces with their Windows operating system, but
should indeed include ALL interfaces (direct or indirect) with ANY
Microsoft product. This is much needed by developers and many
consumers, as well!
I would like to help put Microsoft in its proper place in the
Software World, and see that the DOJ indeed does not ``sell
out'' to MS!
Most sincerely,
C.W.. Medlock
MTC-00032331
From: Jody Ausley
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/14/01 12:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jody Ausley
PO Box 780282
San Antonio, tx 78278
December 14, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final
approval is clearly in the public interest.
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the
litigation would finally be exhausted.
The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors,
consumers
[[Page 29797]]
and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be able to
continue to innovate and provide new software and products. Software
developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors.
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years,
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and
compliance with the settlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even
covers issues and software that were not part of the original
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to
comply with the settlement.
This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes.
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle,
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
Jody Ausley
MTC-00032332
From: Nancy Emmert
To: DOJ
Date: 12/14/01 1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
There are only two things more disgusting than the proposed
settlement between DOJ and Microsoft: one is the settlement proposed
by the states not party to it and the other is that the suit was
brought in the first place.
The very idea that the United States government should have been
party to an attempt to deprive ANY party of rights to its'' own
intellectual property is disgraceful, disgusting and every other
kind of ``dis-'' imaginable.
The only truly just judgment in this case is an order to have
members of what they're now calling the ``Liberty
Alliance'' strung up by their collective cajones., but that's
probably not an available option.
Therefore, I respectfully ask for an end this economic roadblock
and urge acceptance of the agreement submitted jointly by DOJ and
Microsoft. The dissenting states and the economic terrorists ought
to be told to take a hike.
Nancy Emmert ...
200 Roselawn ...
Coleman, Texas 76834-7012
MTC-00032333
From: Alden Ringer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 2:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This message will be followed by a letter of the same content.
Alden C. Ringer
77 Brown Rd
Ctr. Tuftonbors NH 03816
MTC-00032334
From: Henry and Mrs. Arlene Carle
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/17/01 2:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Henry and Mrs. Arlene Carle
6600 Downey Finch Lane
Anchorage, AK 99516-2413
December 17, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final
approval is clearly in the public interest.
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the
litigation would finally be exhausted.
The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors,
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products.
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft
programs compatible with their own.
Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft
application or element of an operating system and install other
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the
settlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed.
Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even
covers issues and software that were not part of the original
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to
comply with the settlement.
This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes.
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle,
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
Henry and Arlene Carle
MTC-00032335
From: Mark Miedlar
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/19/01 2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mark Miedlar
122 E. Cottage Ave
W. Carrollton, OH 45449
December 19, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final
approval is clearly in the public interest.
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources
on matters of far greater national significance the war against
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the
litigation would finally be exhausted.
The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all
sides of this case the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors,
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products.
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's
programming language and thus will be able
[[Page 29798]]
to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors
also benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers
to disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for
the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even
covers issues and software that were not part of the original
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to
comply with the settlement.
This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes.
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle,
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
Mark Miedlar
MTC-00032336
From: Philip Capps
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/20/01 10:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Philip Capps
4507 Ave B
Austin, TX 78751
December 20, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final
approval is clearly in the public interest.
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources
on matters of far greater national significance the war against
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the
litigation would finally be exhausted.
The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all
sides of this case the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors,
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products.
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors.
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years,
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and
compliance with the settlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even
covers issues and software that were not part of the original
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to
comply with the settlement.
This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes.
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle,
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
Philip Capps
MTC-00032337
From: Keith Gallup
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/21/01 11:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Keith Gallup
1707 Brandenbery Dr.
Surfside Beach, SC 29575-5478
December 21, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final
approval is clearly in the public interest.
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the
litigation would finally be exhausted.
The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors,
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products.
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft
programs compatible with their own.
Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft
application or element of an operating system and install other
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the
settlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even
covers issues and software that were not part of the original
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to
comply with the settlement.
This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes.
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle,
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
Keith Gallup
MTC-00032338
From: Charles Loeffler
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/21/01 11:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles Loeffler
7201 Wills Way
Hamilton, Oh 45011
December 21, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
[[Page 29799]]
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final
approval is clearly in the public interest.
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the
litigation would finally be exhausted.
The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors,
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products.
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft
programs compatible with their own.
Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft
application or element of an operating system and install other
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the
settlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even
covers issues and software that were not part of the original
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to
comply with the settlement.
This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes.
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle,
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
Charles E Loeffler
MTC-00032340
From: Tom Remshak
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/21/01 3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Tom Remshak
3250 n 87 st.
Milwaukee, WI 53222
December 21, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final
approval is clearly in the public interest.
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the
litigation would finally be exhausted.
The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors,
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products.
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors.
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years,
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and
compliance with the settlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even
covers issues and software that were not part of the original
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
Tom Remshak
MTC-00032341
From: Adam Wiederholt
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/21/01 6:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Adam Wiederholt
18228 Sunset Ln
Omaha, NE 68135
December 21, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final
approval is clearly in the public interest.
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the
litigation would finally be exhausted. The terms of the settlement
offer a fair resolution for all sides of this case: the DOJ, the
states, Microsoft, competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft
will not be broken up and will be able to continue to innovate and
provide new software and products. Software developers and Internet
service providers (ISPs), including competitors, will have
unprecedented access to Microsoft's programming language and thus
will be able to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up computer
manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or
element of an operating system and install other programs. In
addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer manufactures,
ISPs, or other software developers for using products developed by
Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause,
a Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for
[[Page 29800]]
the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even
covers issues and software that were not part of the original
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to
comply with the settlement.
This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes.
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle,
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
Adam R. Weiderholt
MTC-00032342
From: Perry Staley
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/22/01 5:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Perry Staley
411 Orchard Street
Ironton, OH 45638-1166
December 22, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final
approval is clearly in the public interest.
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the
litigation would finally be exhausted.
The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors,
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products.
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors.
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years,
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and
compliance with the settlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even
covers issues and software that were not part of the original
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to
comply with the settlement.
This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes.
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle,
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
Perry L. Staley
MTC-00032343
From: Mury
To:
[email protected]@inetgw,[email protected]@inetgw...
Date: 12/22/01 3:44pm
Subject: Anti-competitive practices and Lies--Qwest and
Microsoft
Dear Qwest, MN PUC, FCC, USDOJ, FTC, and MN AGO:
I am sitting here on December 22, 2001 steaming mad at Qwest and
MSN (Microsoft). I should be out Christmas shopping, but I'm hardly
in the holiday spirit. It seems as though by partnering with MSN
Qwest thinks they have found a nice little loophole to circumvent
all the trouble they have found themselves in in the past by using
anti-competitive tactics in house.
As the MN PUC should recall they had to impose penalties against
Qwest a couple years back for anti-competitive marketing, product
pricing, treating their own Megacentral product differently than
they treated other ISP's Megacentral product, and for lying to
consumers. The PUC at that time penalized Qwest. A safeharbor number
was set up for consumers to call run by a third party. Qwest had to
provide free modems to ISPs and provide some coop marketing dollars
to help correct the harm done. This hardly compensated us for our
loses, but at least it brought Qwest, then US West, back in line.
Now they are up to the same antics, but they are getting around
the system by partnering with MSN. Qwest's web site is very
misleading and their phone reps flat out lie about pricing and
promotions.
(1) On their web site
http://www.qwest.com/residential/products/dsl/index.html:
Qwest starts out by favoring MSN with phrases such as,
``Get MSN Internet Access or select from hundreds of ISP
partners nationwide.'' Qwest makes it sound like customers will
only get free activation and a free modem if they choose MSN.
``Special DSL Offers--Purchase MSN Broadband Powered
by Qwest 256 or Deluxe and get FREE activation, FREE use of a DSL
modem, and 30 days of FREE service. CustomChoice customers will
receive 60 days of FREE service!*''
Markets a package that includes both MSN and Qwest:
``MSN Broadband Powered by Qwest 256 256K/Up to 256K Use
for fast web surfing, e-mail and downloading moderate-size files.
$39.95 (Includes MSN Internet Access) Order Now ``MSN logo
included
And
``MSN Broadband Powered by Qwest Deluxe Up to 640K/Up to
256K Use for online gaming, e-mailing large attachments or
downloading large files. $49.95 (Includes MSN Internet Access) Order
Now ``MSN logo included We have asked for similar treatment and
have been denied.
(2) When customers call in they are lied to frequently. I have
enclosed a letter from a existing customer that was moving from one
location to another who was told he would only get the promos if he
chose MSN. He didn't want MSN so he is switching to cable. I have
heard many other similar stories and there are probably countless
cases we don't hear about.
(3) If a customer wishes to switch from MSN to us they process
is different. Because the system is somehow tied into MSN's the
customer first must cancel the service with MSN before they can even
order it with us.
(4) The practice of delaying the install of MegaCentral lines
for ISPs is still poorly managed at best and maliciously hampered at
worst. We ordered a MegaCentral line for St. Cloud, Minnesota. On
May 24th, 2001 we received an install due date of June 8th, 2001.
Order Number N91370107
Due Date 6-8-01
Circuit ID 14/HCGJ/95372//ACSO
The circuit was finally installed around October 20th, 2001.
That's 4.5 months *overdue*. It is very important to note that this
install was in a building that has a common wall with the Qwest CO
and there was plenty of fiber running into the building. We selected
this site so there wouldn't be problems like this and we are paying
a premium in rent for the privledge.
We lost thousands of dollars and lost opportunity because of
this. I believe these issues should be looked into by each of you.
When we selected Qwest MegaCentral DSL as a product offering to base
our services on we were promised we would be treated fairly. This
has hardly been the case. I know Qwest thinks that because it's MSN
and out of house they can get away with it, but if they are being
compensated in the least out of the partnership they are certainly
violating the
[[Page 29801]]
spirit of the MegaCentral contracts with other ISPs and any
applicable tariffs.
As a special note to the US Department of Justice here is yet
another example of Microsoft entering into preferred relationships
that snub other competitors in the marketplace.
If any of you see this in my light and find Qwest is at fault,
please apply a quick and effective punishment and provide for *real*
compensation to be paid those of us who have been harmed.
Regards,
Mury Johnson
CEO
GoldenGate Internet Services
763-784-2800
Dear Golden Gate,
I just moved to a new address: 7124 W 113th St, Bloomington MN
55438 phone 952-941-0399. I was planning to transfer my
DSL service to the new location. However, Qwest wanted to charge me
an installation fee ($66 or $99) if I didn't use MSN, and the
service would take up to 2 weeks to get running. On the other hand,
RoadRunner (cable modem) would give me free installation and come
out on the day we moved in. Their bit rate is faster and it costs $5
less per month than DSL. So I decided to try RoadRunner. I
appreciate the great service I received from Golden Gate, but I am
sorry that I will not be needing it anymore. Could you please cancel
my internet service? Thank you.
John C. Harkness (hark11)
CC:Microsoft
ATR,ASKDOJ,[email protected]@...
MTC-00032344
From: james m nordlund
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/23/01 5:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
james m nordlund
p.o.b. 982
Lakin, KS 67860-0982
December 23, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final
approval is clearly in the public interest.
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the
litigation would finally be exhausted.
The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors,
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products.
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors.
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years,
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and
compliance with the settlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even
covers issues and software that were not part of the original
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to
comply with the settlement.
This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes.
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle,
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
James M Nordlund
MTC-00032345
From: Kevin Langdon
To: U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division
Date: 12/23/01 10:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To those in charge of the Microsoft settlement negotiations: I
believe that nothing that has been done to date--specifically
including the abandoned plan to separate Microsoft's operating
system business from its applications business--has gone to the
root of the problem, which is the existence of Microsoft's monopoly
of the operating system business. This is not just market dominance
but a situation in which meaningful competition for non-niche-market
operating system business is effectively impossible.
Given the widely-reported chaos in the negotiations to date, it
may be time to introduce a new solution.
There is a remedy that would be highly effective. It would make
room for competitors in the operating system market while also
leaving Microsoft viable competitive strategies. What I propose is
simply that DOS and Windows (through 98), including all source code,
be placed into the public domain. Microsoft would be free to develop
its Windows 2000 and XP lines, but other companies would be free to
introduce competing developments from the common base of Windows98.
Please give this idea serious consideration.
Sincerely,
Kevin Langdon
MTC-00032346
From: Stephen Teebagy
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/26/01 11:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stephen Teebagy
99 Garrett Place
Plymouth, MA 02360
December 26, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final
approval is clearly in the public interest.
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources
on matters of far greater national significance the war against
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the
litigation would finally be exhausted.
The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all
sides of this case the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors,
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products.
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsofts
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors.
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee
will work out of Microsofts headquarters for the next five years, at
the companys expense, and monitor
[[Page 29802]]
Microsofts behavior and compliance with the settlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute
competitors products after purchase as well. The Judgment even
covers issues and software that were not part of the original
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to
comply with the settlement.
This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes.
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle,
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
Stephen Teebagy
MTC-00032347
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: [email protected]
Date: 12/26/01 2:27pm
Subject: Commentary on Microsoft settlement
I believe that the DOJ settlement is the best offer on the table
for the United States as a whole.
Apparently the ``other'' states want to destroy
Microsoft. Don't let this happen.
Despite the personal interest of the people at Oracle, Sun, et.
al., Microsoft has propelled the microcomputer industry foreword to
a standard.
This benefits everyone (including people that don't own
computers). I have been a professional programmer since 1989, and
while I still prefer the Mac OS, I believe that especially with the
current economy we need to SETTLE THIS CASE BASED ON THE DOJ
RECOMMENDATION now.
Thanks,
-Chris C.
P.S.
Please tell Larry Ellison to shut up, and tell Sun to submit
Java to a standards committee. (tell, not order)
MTC-00032348
From: Timothy Ray
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/27/01 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Timothy Ray
616 S. Sheridan
Fergus Falls, MN 56537-3018
December 27, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final
approval is clearly in the public interest.
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the
litigation would finally be exhausted.
The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors,
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products.
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors.
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years,
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and
compliance with the settlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even
covers issues and software that were not part of the original
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
Timothy Ray
MTC-00032349
From: Jerry Jorgensen
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/28/01 3:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jerry Jorgensen
2505 Las Brisas Drive
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
December 28, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final
approval is clearly in the public interest.
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the
litigation would finally be exhausted. The terms of the settlement
offer a fair resolution for all sides of this case: the DOJ, the
states, Microsoft, competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft
will not be broken up and will be able to continue to innovate and
provide new software and products. Software developers and Internet
service providers (ISPs), including competitors, will have
unprecedented access to Microsoft's programming language and thus
will be able to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft
application or element of an operating system and install other
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the
settlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even
covers issues and software that were not part of the original
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to
comply with the settlement.
This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes.
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle,
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
[[Page 29803]]
Sincerely,
Jerry Jorgensen
MTC-00032350
From: Douglas Warren
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/28/01 4:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Douglas Warren
2 Flintstone Drive
Marlton, NJ 08053-2111
December 28, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse: I would like to express my support for the revised
proposed Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final
approval is clearly in the public interest.
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the
litigation would finally be exhausted.
The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors,
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products.
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft
programs compatible with their own.
Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft
application or element of an operating system and install other
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the
settlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even
covers issues and software that were not part of the original
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to
comply with the settlement.
This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes.
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle,
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
Douglas A. Warren
MTC-00032351
From: Jan Hall
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/28/01 6:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jan Hall
7984 Via Villagio
W. Palm Beach, FL 33412
December 28, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final
approval is clearly in the public interest.
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the
litigation would finally be exhausted. The terms of the settlement
offer a fair resolution for all sides of this case: the DOJ, the
states, Microsoft, competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft
will not be broken up and will be able to continue to innovate and
provide new software and products. Software developers and Internet
service providers (ISPs), including competitors, will have
unprecedented access to Microsoft's programming language and thus
will be able to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft
application or element of an operating system and install other
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the
settlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even
covers issues and software that were not part of the original
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to
comply with the settlement.
This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes.
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle,
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
Jan Hall
MTC-00032352
From: Mark Buell
To: ``[email protected]''
Date: 12/28/01 8:33am
Subject: Microsoft antitrust suit
Dear Sir or Madam;
I strenously object to the current talk of settlement with
Microsoft. They have consistently demonstrated that they are
incorrigibly anti-competitive, and have consistently failed to honor
the spirit, if not the letter, of previous settlements. I see
nothing in the current settlement offered that shows me anything
other than a continuation of the current monopoly situation.
Since I am also completely convinced that having the market
completely change the operating ground rules every two years is not
good for consumers, I am raising my voice to object to the DOJ-
Microsoft settlement.
Regards;
Mark Buell
3814 Emerson Ave.
Memphis, TN 38128
[email protected]
CC:``[email protected]''
MTC-00032353
From: L.D. Best
To: Renata B. Hesse
Date: 12/29/01 1:01pm
Subject: Suggestion
I learned long ago that I cannot know everything. I know a bit
about how the ``law'' works because I've been forced to
deal with it on my own, without an attorney. I know quite a bit
about how computers work, because both my budget and my interests
have had me building my own stuff. I also know quite a bit about how
software works, and how/why some software doesn't work, because I've
had a personal computer for twenty (20) years now. Much of the best
software I have--or had--is no longer of much worth to me,
because the companies who sold and supported it were either run out
of business by Microsoft, or bought out so the software could be
``incorporated'' into
[[Page 29804]]
a Windows bundle ... thus making it unworkable. And being forced to
move to Windows means that I've had to move from a `286
machine to a Pentium 4 1.4GHz machine ... a big jump that leaves the
majority of the worlds'' population unable to make it.
My suggestion is that when it comes to software and computer
systems and fairness of any settlement, lawyers do NOT know enough
to make the decisions. There are still a few software companies
around who might be able to give attorneys a better view of what
software should and shouldn't do, what system integration should and
should not be, what exclusionary practices should be considered as
ongoing monopolistic activities. And there are, of course,
``the open source people''--not exclusively
Linux--who could explain more clearly the dangers of continuing
to allow Microsoft to determine what its punishment should be.
Microsoft's business practices, and the current
``settlement'' as proposed, are horribly dangerous... and
that is NOT a flagrant exageration. They released Windows 2000 while
publicly admitting there were at least 1,000,000 bugs they didn't
want to bother to fix; they released WindowsME with a blare of
trumpets, and within weeks were telling any and sundry to NOT
upgrade to ME because of too many problems; they released WindowsXP
with a promise of the best security and safety of any release to
date--and now are having to face the fact that it offers what
is possibly the worse system security breech ever found in any
software ever used! But that is not the only danger. Because of the
way Microsoft has done, and continues to do, business with
advertising and hype to grab the public and scores of lawyers to
assist in the ``legal'' theft of the intellectual
properties of others, scores of good companies doing good work
producting excellent software have been driven out of business, and
tens of thousands of people have lost their jobs in the last ten
years ... all directly as a result of Microsoft. To allow Microsoft
to continue to exert so much influence, to effective encourage
Microsoft to continue doing what they have always done, is going to
negatively impact an economy which is stil so badly shaken up that
no one with ethics would even attempt to forecast what will happen
in the next year.
And DOJ has to realize that Microsoft can never be judged by
``a jury of peers'' because no other commercial enterprise
in the history of the world ever managed to get such a stranglehold
on the economy of multiple nations; the railroad monopolies, the
steel monopolies, the ``good ol'' boy clubs'' of the
last two centuries are all child's play compared to Microsoft. And
the ``power of the dollar'' that Bill Gates himself wields
is without equal, or even reference points ...
If the proposed settlement is not scrapped, and the original
remedies ordered not implemented, DOJ is effectively placing the
security and the economy of our country into the hands of Microsoft.
Not only is that bad business, it's un-Constitutional IMNSHO.
Most sincerely,
l.d.
L.D. Best
Concerned Citizen
Computer Geek
Disabled Veteran
Mother of Three Ethical Children [maybe 2.5?]
Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
MTC-00032354
From: betty mayes-petty
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/30/01 4:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
betty mayes-petty
route 1 box 231
cunningham, ky 42035
December 30, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final
approval is clearly in the public interest.
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources
on matters of far greater national significance the war against
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the
litigation would finally be exhausted.
The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all
sides of this case the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors,
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products.
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors.
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years,
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and
compliance with the settlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even
covers issues and software that were not part of the original
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to
comply with the settlement.
This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes.
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle,
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
Betty S. Mayes-Petty
MTC-00032355
From: JAMES CROSSLIN
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/30/01 6:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
JAMES CROSSLIN
15523 Chickamauga Ave.
Baton Rouge, LA 70817
December 30, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final
approval is clearly in the public interest.
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the
litigation would finally be exhausted.
The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors,
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products.
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft
programs compatible with their own.
Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft
application or element of an operating system and install other
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot
[[Page 29805]]
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors.
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years,
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and
compliance with the settlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even
covers issues and software that were not part of the original
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to
comply with the settlement.
This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes.
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle,
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
JAMES E. CROSSLIN
MTC-00032356
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/30/01 8:12pm
Subject: my 2 cents worth
This settlement is a joke. It allows Microsoft to tie up in
litigation new battles until the founder grows old and dies. With
this settlement, Microsoft will continue their deceitful practices.
Any deviation will take months or even years to settle in a court of
law.
Example:
Microsoft puts out information for developers that allow them to
use part of the Windows Operating system to develop a product. This
is a normal part of any OS development business. Here is what will
happen, Microsoft will later change the OS which prevents the
developers product from working--while conveniently, however;
the new and upgraded OS has a microsoft version of the developers
middle ware that works just fine.
This is another way to stamp out competition. If anyone thinks
that settlement is fair, it is not. This method of working can only
be compared to a drug dealer. The first few are free, suddenly your
addicted and its a must have in order to operate.
We have grown dependent on software as a means to operate in our
everyday lives.
Microsoft will only tie everything up in court for ever. Here's
a good ``pin prick'' for Microsoft.
Require Microsoft to buy for low income schools competing
software of the Schools choice--the choice can NOT be any
Microsoft product.
Have it be equivalent to the amount of money damage caused thus
far.
How about a billion dollars. No sweat to Microsoft.
Use ANY competing companies--Apple, IBM, SUN, Linux. etc.
PS--Don't let Microsoft gain any money by investing in the
companies that it is competing with.
Good Luck!
I'm glad your prosecuting and I hope the US wins.
Ben
MTC-00032357
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 9:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This suit was ill advised from the start. Settle NOW!
Don Page
Dragoon, AZ
MTC-00032358
From: Don Stults
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 9:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In my opinion, the litigation against Microsoft should cease. I
have a difficult time understanding why the case was litigated.
There seems to be a ``punish the proficient'' attitude in
this case. Microsoft has invested a lot of money to develop products
CONSUMERS WANT and they have accepted ALL the market risks (sales,
worldwide copyright infringement, and yes, competition).
Let Microsoft get on with their business (which they do
well)...the continuing litigation expenses will NOT be paid by
Microsoft, it will be paid by consumers of their products. Don
Stults [email protected]
MTC-00032359
From: Bob Levittan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 9:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Settle it NOW!!!!! Don't let this travesty continue. From the
very beginning, this whole thing has been about Sun, Netscape, AOL
et al, using litigation as a means to compete. END IT NOW! STOP
WASTING MY MONEY! SPEND MORE TIME TRYING TO MAKE OUR LIVES SAFER.
STOP WASTING TIME AND MANPOWER!
END IT NOW!
Bob Levittan
50 Cliftwood Drive
Huntington, NY 11743
MTC-00032360
From: Donald Hetrick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 10:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please record my support to finally settle the endless
litigation against Microsoft. I find the current settlement harsh,
but feel its fine if it can finally be concluded so our country can
move on.
Thank You,
Donald J. Hetrick
MTC-00032361
From: tobeyd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 10:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I've been working as a software developer since 1964.
In my opinion, Microsoft has attained their current position is
because---
(1) They listen to the requests of Computer Users.
(2) They develop quality solutions based on Users requests.
(3) They provide an integrated platform for Independent and
Corporate Developers to provide effective solutions for their
clients.
Imagination and Innovation are the keys.
Thanks,
David Drake
MTC-00032362
From: Kaveh Mofidi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 10:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MTC-00032363
From: Rick Weyenberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 11:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Settle now!
MTC-00032364
From: Miriam A. Detert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 11:32pm
Subject: Microsoft
This entire case is the most unjust case your so called Justice
Department has ever taken . You are prosecuting an innocent man and
company. They have done more for this country than anyone in many,
many years.
Miriam A. Detert
MTC-00032365
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 11:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Setlement
The Microsoft settlement is harsh, and more than enough penalty
for Microsoft. Prolonging this only benefits a few special
interests, for their own greed. AOL is prime for a monopoly
investigation, and is campaigning for more against Microsoft to
benefit their own interests. The few states protesting were only
being more greedy than the rest, looking for a free ride on someone
esle's money. No one is forced to buy Microsoft or use IE, but do
because it is a better product.
Leave them alone.
Jan Roberts
MTC-00032366
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: usdoj
Date: 1/1/02 8:15am
Morning,
I am not a big fan of Microsoft. But I will say this take
Mircosoft and close it down (split it up)how many thousands of
people who work for Microsoft lose their job. How many on the
outside of Microsoft will lose their job.
The affects of September 11 are felt world wide. People can no
longer work because of the changes made to every industry and
business. Now we want in the name of
[[Page 29806]]
fairness to break up mircosoft. Why because the competition hasn't
got the courage to go out and face Mircosoft without the governments
help.
When it comes to law I don't expect much. It seems who ever has
the smarts to make money and be forward thinking will always be open
to attach by the greedy and the supposed do gooders (governement and
lawyers) of this world.
Only in America a country of which I am proud to be a part can
the minority change the way of life for the majority. Only in
America can one person change a system that can affect thousands
even if the thousands don't what the change.
I hear reference to the constitution all the time. But has
anyone lately ever truly read it. I don't think so. Every time
someone doesn't like something they point to the constituation and
say my rights are not being given to me.
As I said at the beginning I am not a fan of Microsoft. Do I use
their products? Yes some and others no. Thats because as an
individual I have choices and if I choose not to use something I can
turn it off or not buy it.
Yet the courts and the government in their do good way wish to
take choices away from the people and pass laws that say we must use
this product or that product.
Freedom of choice on my part I don't think so. Freedom of choice
something the government and the courts have forgotten about. They
now make the choices for us citizens and there in lies the basic
causes of all our problems today.
I know the courts and the government will disagree with me as
they must to ensure that they have positions of power and control.
Common sense which was onced used in this country on a daily basis
has been replaced by greed, personal wishes and power of the few (in
politics and law) over the many and is support by the government and
the courts.
There are more important thing to worry about in our country and
the world today. Leave Microsoft alone and lets get this country
back on its feet.
Paul
MTC-00032367
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Bruce Gladstone
Date: 1/1/02 6:59pm
Subject: Re: Settlement
Dear Bruce,
Even the MS-only software donated to underprivileged schools?
Some penalty! It's like requiring an over-agressive religion to
distribute its catechisms to poor people.
Now, if they required MS to distribute & support Linux or
BSD or Corel or Netware, perhaps I would believe it was a
``penalty'' and not government- sanctioned self-promotion.
Tom
On Tuesday, January 01, 2002 at 13:53, Bruce Gladstone
wrote re
``Settlement'' saying: I am thoroughly in agreement with
the settlement reached by Microsoft and the Justice Department. I
believe the continuing objections by the State's Attorneys General
are politically motivated and are not designed to benefit consumers
in the slightest. This is especially true of Atty. Gen Lockyear in
my home state. It is no coincidence that both Sun and Oracle are
California Corporations, both would much rather not compete with
Microsoft based server applications and database software and both
were significant contributors to Atty. General Lockyear.
- Bruce
Bruce Gladstone
email: [email protected]
3937 Sumac Dr.
tel: (818) 986-2950
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
fax: (818) 981-5922
------- Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
----@Tom A. Trottier +1 613 860-6633
fax:231-6115
----bs--[email protected] N45.412 W75.714
Laws are the spider's webs which,
if anything small falls into them they ensnare it,
but large things break through and escape.
--Solon, statesman (c.638-c558 BCE)
I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the
rights of the people by the gradual and silent encroachments of
those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. -James
Madison, fourth US president (1751-1836)
CC:Microsoft
ATR,[email protected]@inet...
MTC-00032368
From: Dale E. Anderson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/2/02 6:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dale E. Anderson
814 West Third Avenue
Garnett, KS 66032-2002
January 2, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final
approval is clearly in the public interest.
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources
on matters of far greater national significance ? the war against
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the
litigation would finally be exhausted.
The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors,
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products.
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors.
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years,
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and
compliance with the settlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even
covers issues and software that were not part of the original
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to
comply with the settlement.
This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes.
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle,
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
Dale E. Anderson
MTC-00032370
From: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/2/02 11:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
I'm all for the present microsoft settlement, I don't think they
were a monopoly, I think it was a liberal witch hunt.
MTC-00032371
From: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/2/02 11:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
When is enough, enough? I think it may very well be when I see
more and more tax dollars go down the tube to persecute a business
and with no perceptible gain to me or the general public. It seems
to me that my dollars are being used to assist other major
corporation executives line their pockets. I was under the
impression that a satisfactory settlement had been reached. I guess
also the attorneys must feel that there is more to be gained by the
hours charged for continuing litigation. Let them go back to chasing
[[Page 29807]]
ambulances and let Microsoft's competitors go to marketing their own
products for their profits.
Donald S. Chakas
610 W. Pacificview Drive
Bellingham, WA.
MTC-00032372
From: w--engstrom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
Instead of being harassed by the U. S. Government, Microsoft
should be considered as a National Treasure. Its exported products
help our economy and expand our capabilities. I think that the court
case against Microsoft was totally unfounded. Whatever concessions
that Microsoft makes are more than adequate, and in my opinion
should not even be necessary. While there are those people (mainly
Microsoft's competitors) who want to suppress Microsoft, we believe
that Microsoft provides great products and follows up with great
support for those products.
Microsoft's products are sometimes released with
``bugs.'' However, Microsoft readily provides fixes via
the Internet as soon as they realize there is a problem. Their
customer support is outstanding. As an engineer, I recognize that
few products that hit the marketplace can be perfect, and that it is
impossible to foresee everything that can go wrong, no matter how
well you plan. In spite of this, Microsoft does a great job and has
provided significant support to the technology and economic health
of the industry and our country.
William Engstrom
3110 181 Avenue NE
Redmond, WA 98052-5934
PS, I haven't seen Janet Reno or Joel Klein producing any
software or anything else of value to the country lately. Thank God
they are no longer with the Government. The main thing that can be
said of Joel Klein is that he successfully used the Microsoft suit
as a stepping stone to a better-paying job. But he left a wake of
destruction behind him.
MTC-00032373
From: William B. Zollars
To: Dept. of Justice
Date: 1/2/02 1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It seems to me that the settlement arrived at between the
Justice Dept. and Microsoft is fair and should be put to rest. I am
a Microsoft OS user and think their products are excellent. They
should direct their efforts toward creating new software rather than
having to spend so much money in legal fees defending charges by
their competitors.
William B. Zollars
phone: (412)835-4741
fax: (412)835-4781
email: [email protected]
MTC-00032374
From: Larry Timmons
To: DOJ
Date: 1/2/02 1:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
As a professional engineer that conducts business around the
world I can attest to the usefulness of the Microsoft family of
products and the increase in productivity these standard products
have allowed. Our business helps bring foreign revenue to the US.
Our ability to communicate with foreign companies is dependent on
using the same software.
While you may consider some of the previous tactics that
Microsoft has allegedly used anti-competitive, the net result has
been establishing a standard with which the world of business can
communicate. For those of us that remember computers of the 80's and
early 90's when there were few standards.
At that time I spent most of the time just getting various
software packages to run consistently on the computer.
This resulted in a substantial amount of wasted time. Today's
programs enable us to conduct business without being computer
wizards.
I personally feel that the government has pushed this case well
beyond its merits and strongly urge the DOJ to settle this matter as
proposed and let us business people get on with life and let
Microsoft continue to bring us new and useful products. Let the free
market decide the future of Microsoft.
L.M. Timmons, President
Aircraft Engineering Specialists, Inc.
425-641-6631
MTC-00032375
From: BillMeelater
To: DOJ
Date: 1/2/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement--Public Comment
Dear DOJ,
I think the settlement between Microsoft and the DOJ is fair and
I believe it is in the best interest of consumers, the country and
Microsoft to get on with the business of business and stop this
seemingly endless litigation.
Perhaps I am missing something, but as a computer software and
hardware consumer for over 20 years, I still fail to see how I've
been hurt by the Microsoft Corporation. I have never felt cheated
by, or felt forced to buy just their products. They are
competitively priced and function very well considering the nature
of computers and software.
I think it's safe to say that in this case, the governments
actions against Microsoft have slowed a great company's progress
towards further enabling consumers, businesses, government, etc.
from becoming more productive and efficient. Ironically, the DOJ has
done more to hurt people who own Microsoft stock than Microsoft will
ever do to stockholders or consumers. While I agree that a big
company such as Microsoft can intimidate other start ups and crush
competition, one should realize that business, like nature itself,
has a natural order and rhythm. At some point in time, Microsoft
won't be the `big gorilla' on the block. In the
meantime, by having almost a standard operating system for computers
in general, we all benefit from increased productivity. Again, after
the big phone company breakup, and the disappearance of a common
long distance carrier, it was (and still is) tough to make long
distance calls from phones you don't own. If you've dealt with
computers for any length of time, the nightmare doubles in scope
without standards in place.
Forgive the rambling. Let's get back to work doing something
constructive. The country's economy is not well, and we need to end
what I consider somewhat of a--`witch hunt',
brought on largely by a few jealous competitors. I repeat--as a
consumer of operating systems, browsers, office suites, etc., I have
never felt cheated by Microsoft's products.
Sincerely,
Bill Braun
Colorado
MTC-00032377
From: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/2/02 4:48pm
Subject:
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 17:32:45 -0800
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 17:32:45 -0800
To: [email protected]
From: Anne Smidt
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=``us-ascii'';
format=flowed
For heaven sakes--let's not prolong this litigation any
longer. The Dept of Justice took a stand & let's abide by their
rulings. Please consider the public's best interests and not make
this a vendetta instigated by Microsoft's so-called competitors or
``special interest'' groups. The public wants this over
with. I WANT THIS LITIGATION TO END NOW.
V. Anne Smidt
MTC-00032378
From: rtalarczyk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:38pm
Subject: Microsoft ....
To whom it may concern,
In my opinion punishing Microsoft can only stymie other hitech
companies in America from doing innovative work in the future.
America should be proud of what Microsoft has contributed to the
world. Microsoft has greatly helped America become the leader in
computer technology.
Many other competitors are envious of this contribution both
here and abroad. Lets not destroy in what we have created. Lets move
forward , for the battle to be won will be, to keep America the
Leader in advanced of technology.
Thank you,
Robert Talarczyk
MTC-00032379
From: Vi Ann B. Clough
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/3/02 5:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think it s time to just settle this dispute and not have any
more litigation. Microsoft got where it is by working at it and
should NOT be stiffled because someone else wants a piece of the
cake.
Thank you,
Mrs. Ralph D. Clough
[email protected]
[[Page 29808]]
MTC-00032380
From: bill boone
To: Dept. of Justice
Date: 1/3/02 9:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the Attorney General of the United States of America
When the Microsoft case is finally settled, the economy will get
back on track. Confidence will be restored to small and large
investor alike.
Microsoft will be able to get back full time to do what they do
best, being the leader in inovation in making our lives better, at a
reasonable price.
Stop the never ending litigation, and settle.
Sincerely,
Josephine M. Boone (Mrs.)
903 Mc Donald Road
Cle Elum, Washington 98922-8933
509-674-2975--phone
509-674- 5947--fax
[email protected] -e-mail
CC:Dept. of Justice
MTC-00032382
From: Bill Pickering
To: Dept of Justice
Date: 1/4/02 9:03am
Subject: Proposed Microsoft settlement
AMERICA MUST FACE THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE AND RESPOND CORRECTLY The
proposed terms of antitrust settlement with Microsoft to distribute
free operating software to education markets is totally unacceptable
and should NOT be passed by individual states not the Justice Dept.
The proposed action is really not a penalty--it is a benefit to
Microsoft.
1. Anyone with an abacus can figure out it doesn't cost
$1billion to press, distribute CDs to schools. This is only a slap
on the wrist, and certainly no where close to global community
service! It's ineffective action against a known monopoly and poses
no penalty for Microsoft's illegal gains.
2. Sending free Microsoft Windows CDs to schools is only forcing
educational markets to accept the Windows operating system--a
contrived ploy to further perpetuate the very Microsoft monopoly the
Justice Department is trying so diligently to eliminate! Schools who
use other computing platforms receive no benefit from this proposed
action. The proposed settlement is pure nonsense, designed to
benefit no one except Microsoft.
Please do not accept this ridiculous settlement proposal. It
would be devastating to our economy in the long run, and it
demoralizes America's trust in our justice system.
Hundreds of thousands of parents, teachers and students across
our nation have already reviewed and rejected this proposal. These
folks are now asking and watching to see if individual states and
the Justice Department are also wise enough to see the deception
behind this proposal and refuse it's acceptance.
Microsoft continues its takeover of existing software companies
at an alarming rate. Several more companies have become
``Microsoft property'' in past several months (incl. Great
Plains Accounting). Microsoft apparently fails all reasonable
efforts to deploy required self-control measures and stop it's
monopolistic practices. Instead, Microsoft defies judicial orders to
halt predatory practices altogether. These uncontrolled (antitrust)
practices are a devastating injustice against Americans and
computing industry competitors; as such must be halted by the
Justice Department. More appropriate settlement terms must be
pursued, or Microsoft must be split up.
Please don't turn you back on America. Do not accept the
settlement proposal.
MTC-00032383
From: Claude Prevots
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/4/02 2:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings:
The lawsuit against Microsoft was ill conceived and a serious
detriment to the economic health of this nation. It does not help
consumers but prevents MIcrosoft from helping consumers. The present
settlement was too long in coming but should be accepted to end all
further litigation. Let Microsoft innovate and consumers will
benefit more than if further litigation is allowed to continue.
Have a good day.
Claude Prevots
[email protected]
MTC-00032384
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 3:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern: In my opinion, the entire Microsoft
issue is about money and another way for the law profession to
``feather their nest''. It has nothing to do with
antitrust, monopolies or protecting the ``John Q Public''.
Microsoft does NOT have monopoly on anything. There are several
other operating system options available for which the end user can
use the browser he or she prefers. As a matter of fact, he or she
can use the browser of choice with Windows!
I use Microsoft products on a regular basis. It is my choice to
use these products because, as a developer, my customer base also
uses Microsoft products and in order for my products to function on
my customers equipment, I must produce software that will work on
their equipment.
If the customer base used Unix, Apple, or O/S 2, I would
probably go that route. Every dollar Microsoft spends to protect
itself from frivolous litigation means that I am going to have to
spend more for products I use. As with taxes, corporations do not
pay for the cost of litigation-- their customers do!
The only winners going this route are those folks with
``Esquire'' after their names. Please end this as soon as
possible. ``Trickle Down Economics'' goes both ways, you
know!
Sincerely,
Robert L. Dahlberg
Carol E. Dahlberg
145 W Midway Blvd
Broomfield, CO 80020
MTC-00032385
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: USDOJ
Date: 1/4/02 6:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I will keep my comments short, not through lack of interest, but
because it is high time this case is settled for the good of the
consumers. The Tunney Act is fair to all concerned. Let us now end
this case and get the DOJ back to prosecuting criminals and
Microsoft back to making software.
Stephen DeWalt
MTC-00032386
From: James O'Connell
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/5/02 9:40am
Subject: Message From a Concerned Citizen
Dear Department of Justice:
As a principal software engineer who's been working in the
software industry for years, I want to express to you how happy I
was to see a settlement with Microsoft, thereby ending three years
of antitrust lawsuits.
Upon review of the terms, it is evident that the settlement is
more than fair. The terms require Microsoft to design future
versions of Windows, to make it easier to install non-Microsoft
software, and to disclose information about certain internal
interfaces in Windows. The terms also promote significant change in
the way Microsoft develops, licenses, and markets its software. A
committee to make sure that Microsoft abides by the agreement will
oversee all of this. Not only are these terms well thought out, but
also they obviously benefit all parties involved.
I am sure that there are many other pressing issues to
concentrate on rather than continue to focus on Microsoft. The more
we delay this process, the more we delay getting our technology
industry back on its feet. The global market is an extremely
competitive one, and we need to stay on top of the race. Please help
support our IT sector by helping to make sure that no further action
is taken against the current settlement.
Sincerely,
James W. O'Connell
99 Winsor Ave
Watertown, MA 02472-1482
MTC-00032387
From: Dariusz Jarzynski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 9:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a Microsoft software user, and a citizen of this great
country, I support the US government and Microsoft efforts to settle
the current lawsuit to the benefit of the consumer. I strongly
support this settlement which allows the best and most inovative
corporations to continue to develop the best software programs as a
result of their creativity, their consumer-oriented research and
their willingness to contribute to develop a more efficient work
environment.
Darek Jarzynski
Issaquah, WA
MTC-00032389
From: Susan Sheridan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 10:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 29809]]
I don't believe that anti-trust laws are constitutional. The
government should not be involved in economics. Please repeal the
Sherman Antitrust laws.
Susan Sheridan
MTC-00032390
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 10:21pm
Subject: Please Allow Microsoft to Operate Without Penalties
Capitalist America is supposed to boost Capitalism, not destroy
it. Many of us profit when Microsoft profits. Employees, customers,
investors all benefit. This action should not have been taken to
advance the competitors who instigated it. Settle it now and let
Microsoft and its beneficiaries get on with their business.
Pat and Fred Carlson, 766 Calle Pecos, Thousand Oaks, ca 91360.
[email protected]
MTC-00032391
From: Fabiano Moya
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 10:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Att. To Whom it May Concern
As many others Alternative Operational Systems that have been
hurt by the monopolistic policies of MicroSoft. We received the
request from the headers of various projects to manifest ourselves
and let our minds be known, so here it is, agreeing to the last ii
and jj to the requests being made by many users all over the world.
I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting the
BeOS back into the market place, but there is no hope of success if
the following issues aren't addressed:
MS Office needs to be opened, so that developers interested in
porting it or understanding the document formats can do so either in
form of a source code licence or an allowance to see it, check it
and ``clone libraries'', so that applications on non-
Windows OSs can read and write MS Office formats for flawless
interaction with Windows users.
The Win32 API needs to be made available (incl. undocumented
APIs) so that WINE can be successfully ported not only to BeOS but
other OS too.
The file system needs to be opened, so that BeOS users can
continue to access files on non-BFS partitions.
The ruling must include a ``must-carry'' rule, so that
any OEM Microsoft is supplying Windows with HAS to ``dual-
boot'' an alternative operating system, in this case BeOS, in
order to remedy the damage MS has done to BeOS in the past.
MTC-00032392
From: Stu Adler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 10:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough is enough! Microsoft provides excellent product support
at no charge, while their competitors don't even know what the term
means. Microsoft has EARNED their position by savvy marketing,
customer support and reasonable prices. The agreement with the DOJ
was fair. What the states want is the destruction of Microsoft so
that their home town losers can form a new monopoly of high priced
products with lousy service. This is NOT in the best interest of the
community of users!
Stu Adler
14914 Mayall St.
Mission Hills, CA 91345
MTC-00032393
From: Jack O'Leery
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 10:45pm
Subject: settlement
B.Gates, et al:
MSFT uber alles!! Don't give up the ship. The whole US is sick
and tired of the DOJ hammering MSFT with no real objective other
than to inflate the egos of its zealot lawyers. All the best, and
happy new year!! OPHTH1, an admirer.
MTC-00032394
From: Ben
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 11:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a Microsoft ``Consumer'', as well as a Microsoft
shareholder in my IRA. I am retired and a Social Security recipient.
And I guess that this is my only opportunity to say what I think re
the DOJ vs. Microsoft settlement. So here it is.
If Netscape, Sun Microsystems, et al, think that they have been
``screwed'', how about me? As I recall, Netscape joined
with AOL in a deal that paid Netscape appx. four billion dollars.
Now isn't that a sad story! But I had Microsoft stock in my IRA for
my retirement days (I am now 73 years of age), and I lost 50% of my
retirement fund within days of the time that Judge Jackson,
extremely biased against Microsoft by anybody's standards,decided to
rule that the company that has done more for the U.S. economy than
any other in recent history should be split apart. My retirement
funds, along with those of thousands of others, were lost apparently
because Microsoft's competitors opted to pressure Congress (Orrin
Hatch, for one) and the Department of Justice to make their
businesses successful, rather than to achieve comparable success
through their own brain power and effort.
I owned my own small business and no Attorney General, lawyers
or courts helped me. My company provided good products and good
service. And when I installed a Microsoft system (that makes me a
``Consumer'') I did not feel cheated. I was happy with the
product I purchased and am still happy with the equipment I still
use at home in my retirement years. But my retirement prospects are
not nearly such a pretty sight due to this litigation that is going
on and on and on and on.
The proposed settlement appears to be a good one for all
concerned. My congratulations to both the Department of Justice and
Microsoft for that. But what right do those still opposing the
settlement have to harm me further for their own selfish interests?
Let them get to work, just as I did (on a smaller basis, of course),
and make it on their own merits instead of sponging off of someone
else's intelligence and hard work.
In this time of national stress this country and all of us need
all of the incentive our economy and our stock market can get. Our
President is right! Our economy needs a stimulus--and it won't
come by cow-towing to limited selfish interests by such as those
refusing to accept the proposed settlement and vowing to pursue
further litigation. Let's get on with what's best for our country,
our elderly (myself and my wife included), and all others with
retirement programs of all ages, our military men and women, and
those who are just plain happy with their Microsoft products. Enough
of this particular hasseling and litigation. Bill and Melinda Gates
have set an outstanding example by donating over a billion dollars
of their personal income (undoubtedly mostly from Microsoft profits)
to very worthy charities throughout the world. How rewarding it
would be if some of these litigation-happy competitors would do
likewise with even a small fraction of the big bucks they are
contributing to big-name trial lawyers!!
God Bless America.
Respectfully Submitted,
S. Ben Riva
Bellevue, Washington .
MTC-00032395
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 11:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would just like to say that Microsoft should not be broken up
by any means. It's not the jurisdiction of our government do define
competition as total equality. It would be punishing people who have
worked hard to create a product that people like and buy. The
government does not have the right to say who prospers or define
one's earnings. Now that Explorer is free it forces Netscape to be
original, provide the consumer with something new that Explorer does
not allow. It forces other people to create, to strive. You do not
punish Gates for being successful. Apple computer still has a
wonderful product which they sell. The government suppressing
individuals ability to create is everything the framers of our
constitution would go against. Gates has the right to his property.
This is the equivalent of if I owned large amounts of land so I
could sell it at lower prices hurting real estate companies, so the
government took my land. That says that my property is not mine, but
rather everything I own is up to the discretion of the state to
take. We do not live in a socialist government, and I fear that this
decision would be another attempt for the government to define our
lives as a collective regime to help one another. Look the
government cannot violate ones property rights. If this decision
goes through then that says that says the government can control
ones property which is strait communist no doubt. There's no
violation of the law unless Microsoft hurts the rights of another.
The constitution says we as individuals have the right in the
pursuit of happiness. That does not mean happiness is guaranteed to
the individual. Neither does it mean the state has the right to
define the level of happiness we're allowed. Please please please do
not break up Microsoft.
[[Page 29810]]
MTC-00032396
From: The Talleys
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 11:52pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I agree with the terms of the settlement.
MTC-00032397
From: Carol Kelly
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/6/02 5:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carol Kelly
78401 Bigelow Way
Cottage Grove, OR 97424-9430
January 6, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final
approval is clearly in the public interest.
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the
litigation would finally be exhausted.
The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors,
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products.
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors.
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years,
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and
compliance with the settlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even
covers issues and software that were not part of the original
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to
comply with the settlement.
This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes.
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle,
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
Carol A. Kelly
MTC-00032398
From: Sean OToole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
TO: US Dept of Justice.
As a concerned citizen and tax payer I urge you to put the
Microsoft case to rest. It may have been a nice idea for the Federal
Government and State Governments to sue Microsoft when the economy
was soaring and the states saw dollar signs....those days are gone.
I understand that a few high level government officials are looking
for private sector jobs and like to make a name for themselves while
they have the unlimited budget of the taxpayer. If we continue to
allow a few lawyers seek name recognition at the expense of the
corporation we will destroy our free economy.
The governments job should be to protect the greater public
interest and allow Americans to pursue their own happiness. It has
been made very clear in this case that Microsoft has not damaged the
consumer or the public's interest. I appreciate all our government
does. Americans truly are fortunate to live here and I am grateful
for the Department of Justice and the people who serve there.
In this matter I think we should let the free market solve the
competitive issues.
Thank you.
SEAN OTOOLE
MTC-00032399
From: Aubrey Brewster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 4:48pm
Subject: (no subject)
I think the microsoft settlement is Fair let it stand.
Thanks Aubrey Brewster
MTC-00032402
From: John Mulhall
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/6/02 8:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Mulhall
7 Evergreen Lane
Cazenovia, NY 13035
January 6, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final
approval is clearly in the public interest.
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the
litigation would finally be exhausted.
The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors,
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products.
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft
programs compatible with their own.
Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft
application or element of an operating system and install other
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the
settlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even
covers issues and software that were not part of the original
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to
comply with the settlement.
This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes.
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle,
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
John A. Mulhall
[[Page 29811]]
MTC-00032403
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 11:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
I believe that it's in the best interest of American consumers (and
indeed of the US economy) for the DOJ to quickly resolve it's issues
with Microsoft. I think that there never really was a case against
Microsoft that warranted any kind of major penalties.
Thank you.
Larry Delaney
Consumer and small business owner
MTC-00032404
From: Jonathan Tarbox
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/7/02 7:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs;
I was deeply involved with the BeOS operating system at one time
and would greatly love to get back into the swing of things with it.
However, since Be, Inc. is no more and Palm is hesitant about
licensing out the BeOS source code to the BeUnited project
(www.beunited.org), I thought I'd voice my opinion.
The main thing that prevented BeOS, or any non-Microsoft
operating system, from being shipped on any mainstream OEM computers
was the MS licensing preventing OEM companies from being able to
install other operating system. There should be no bonus or penalty
to an OEM for not installing or installing another operating system
on a shipping PC. From what I knew of the deal, an OEM company would
loose out on bonuses that Microsoft would award thier OEM purchasers
if they installed other operating systems on thier shipping PCs.
And because of the lack of OEM support, hardware manufacturers
would often not write drivers for thier hardware for the BeOS. This
greatly hurt the momentem of the BeOS to a point that the owners of
Be, Inc. had to shift focus to Internet Appliance devices instead of
PCs. This also didn't pan out and the IP of Be, Inc. was sold to
Palm recently.
Personally, I believe the settlement should prevent MS from
using licensing or monetary bonuses to sway OEMs into using only MS
products on thier PCs. It should also remove limitation of not
allowing any other operating system to dual boot with any MS
operating system. Thanks, Jonathan Tarbox
MTC-00032405
From: chester c fong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Department. of Justice
Re: Microsoft Settlement
As a private citizen, this case should be closed and left as is.
It has cost quite a bit of money to work on this case both from the
government (representing the people), the taxpayers who pay the
government to perform, and the Microsoft Co. who are the defendants
of this case.
The settlement brought forth by the lower courts is a fair one.
It costs Microsoft Company to pay for its transgressions of the law
and the Plaintiffs should be happy. The public (taxpayers) are sick
and tired of this case dragging over the past two years.
This case has been deemed fair by the courts, let it be. In the
interests of justice for everyone concerned it is closed.
Private Citizen,
Chester Fong
801 Franklin St.
Oakland, Ca 94607
MTC-00032406
From: Les Thompson
To: John Ashcroft
Date: 1/7/02 10:03am
Subject: Microsoft
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I wanted to let you know that I think the government made the
right choice in ending its litigation against Microsoft. Frankly,
the Justice Department never should have continued the action
against this company in the first place, and I am glad to see that
the matter is finally resolved.
Microsoft makes innovative products, and this is not an excuse
to break up this company. Microsoft has agreed to share information
with its competitors, but it will still be allowed to develop
products that will improve the technology industry. The settlement
is fair and was reached after extensive negotiations. A technical
review committee will ensure that Microsoft complies with the terms
of the settlement.
I believe you have made the right decision by settling with
Microsoft. Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Les Thompson
Leslie Thompson
MTC-00032409
From: Mike Pritchard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 11:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In my opinion... the DOJ should back off a little.
I think the DOJ investigation is being driven by competitors of
Microsoft. I also think Microsoft's competitors are jealous because
they have been unable to duplicate Microsoft's success.
Do you remember what it was like to work with computers in the
70's and 80's??? Proprietary computers running proprietary software.
Hardware and software costs were outrageous and maintenance cost
weren't much better.
Software programs were not standardized and they didn't always
play nice with each other. The philosophy of big computer companies
seemed to be, ``Do it our way or don't do it''. Trying to
get different computer to work together was very frustrating (if not
impossible).
Microsoft could have played by the same rules as everybody else
(in the computer industry). Instead, today we have standards and
tightly integrated tools for developing and running software.
I do not think Microsoft is a Monopoly. They do not own the
hardware and software (unlike Apple and IBM), and there are many
operating systems to choose from. You can run several types of UNIX,
Macintosh, OS2, etc... Most people choose MSWindows. It is quite
nice to have many tools integrated into the MS operating system.
Because of its size it may be a good idea to keep an eye on
Microsoft, but in my opinion they should get a commendation for what
they have accomplished. Microsoft has made my job easier and more
productive.
Michael A Pritchard
Access Development
Director of IS, CIO
SLC, Ut
MTC-00032410
From: Mader, John
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/7/02 12:55pm
Subject: Anti-Trust Settlement
To whom it may concern
I feel that if the present settlement is allowed to stand
(Microsoft allowed to continue shipping their applications bundled
with their operating system) the consumer will have to pay the cost
of mitigation. With the clout that the operating system gives
Microsoft they will be able to move into any lucrative software
market after other firms develop those markets. This pattern is very
evident (i.e. Java, Palm, Sun). Eventually most of the other players
will be pushed out of the market, and Microsoft will be successful
in creating a barrier to the software market. This loss of
competition will not serve the interest of the American people. I
ask the court to break Microsoft into 2 or more companies.
John Mader
10228 Gatemont Circle
Elk Grove Ca. 95624
MTC-00032412
From: JudeAVettraino
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 3:40pm
MTC-00032413
From: Cornel Sarosdy
To: DOJ
Date: 1/7/02 4:17pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Neither the DOJ nor the court should do nothing to contravene
the settlement already completed between DOJ and MSFT. The case of
the states still suing should be thrown out by the court. I have
used MSFT products for many years and have never thought to be taken
advantage of by MSFT.
Cornel Sarosdy
MTC-00032415
From: Eberhard Hafermalz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 6:05pm
Subject: Settlement with MicroSoft
Dear Sir/Madam
Following a request by Helmar Rudolph who is part of the
BeUnited Team and with whom a DOJ person has talked on January 4,
2002, I would like to submit my views on what is necessary to remedy
the damage done to the market for PC operating systems (OS) by
MicroSoft.
[[Page 29812]]
I am not a developer but a user of the BeOS, an alternative
operating system widely acclaimed for its potential as a desktop OS.
I would like to stress that the BeOS never has taken off as a widely
used OS on the PC market. Not because it does not have the
potential; there is publicly available numerous evidence to the
contrary. The BeOS has died because computer makers were not allowed
to pre-install this OS on their systems instead of or even alongside
a MicroSoft OS, thus precluding a broad distribution. It is a known
fact that computer makers declined the offer of Be, Inc., the maker
of BeOS, to ship their machines with the BeOS pre-installed because
this would invoke the respective punitive clauses in the licensing
agreement they had with MicroSoft.
Further, when installing a MicroSoft OS onto a computer already
equipped with the BeOS (or any other OS), the MicroSoft OS wipes the
so-called bootblock, resulting in the computer only booting into the
MicroSoft OS afterwards. As is well known, MicroSoft OSs are prone
to get unusable after a short period of time, requiring extensive
maintenance which more often than not is easiest done by re-
installing the whole system. This obviously invokes the bootblock
problem every time a re-install is conducted.
These two issues alone make it almost impossible for the average
computer user to (a) acquire a non-MicroSoft OS running computer,
and (b) maintain a dual-boot system where one of the OSs is a
MicroSoft one.
The remedy for issue (a) would be to disallow MicroSoft in clear
terms the use of any contractual clauses in their licensing
agreements that restrict the decision of the computer maker on what
OS, if any, to ship with the computer they manufacture.
The remedy for issue (b) is to disallow MicroSoft the
overwriting of the bootblock when Windows (or another MicroSoftware)
is installed. This is technically possible by giving the user the
choice which systems to boot into. Resolving issue (b) is in fact
complementary to issue (a) for the reasons explained above;
otherwise MicroSoft would be allowed to abuse their dominant market
position by simply accomplishing at a later point in time what they
have been denied at the manufacturer's stage: killing the competing
OS on the same computer.
In light of the MicroSoft strategy of the past, the above is not
the only remedy I think necessary because it would only create a
level playing field. MicroSoft would be allowed to maintain the
fruit of their previous unfair competition practice. Thus it appears
justified to require MicroSoft to cede proprietary information in
areas where it has acquired a de-facto monopoly by way of utilizing
advantages from their unfair competitive behavior.
Most importantly, this includes the ``office'' part of
the company's business. MicroSoft Office is the standard because
Office was pressed onto the consumer as ``part of
Windows'', which--as well as the Internet
Explorer--it is not. MicroSoft thus utilized the practice
described above to eliminate any competitor in this software
segment.
In order for rival makers of office software to compete they
need the information required to create translators, software add-
ons (``plug-ins'' in Windows-speak) that allow the
competing software to import from and export files to MicroSoft
Office (and other) formats. I would like to point out that in order
to accomplish this it is not required that MicroSoft open their
source code of Windows, MicroSoft Office, or any other software.
Moreover, I would like to bring to your attention that it is not
only Windows, and MicroSoftware running on Windows, that needs to be
included in a settlement. MicroSoft is already showing the same
patterns of behavior as before in the market for handheld computers.
Also they are obviously trying to delay any remedial action against
the Windows monopoly in the desktop computer market until Windows is
no longer their main productline. Any settlement that is to create
and ensure a level playing field in the longer term not only needs
to remove the Windows monopoly but at the same time include any
future OS or, indeed, software MicroSoft might sell, be it
``.Net'' software, Windows CE/Stinger, or any other
product.
Finally, please revise your stance on the issue of MicroSoft's
``giving away freely'' computers, software, and service
for these to schools. This is no remedy but an opportunity. It will
create a new market for the company. These days MicroSoft's power to
abuse their position stems from the very fact that for most people
the term ``computer'' automatically means
``Windows'', i.e. MicroSoft. Letting MicroSoft ``make
good'' for their abusive behavior by opening one of the few
places where competing OS maker Apple still holds a better than
insignificant market share would mean, as we say in Germany, to try
to expel the devil with the Beelzebub.
The fate of innovation is at stake. Innovation cannot come from
a company that has been holding the monopoly for almost ten years
now. There is much better, much more innovative software out there
than MicroSoft one but it will never have a chance.
Unless MicroSoft is forced to give it that chance.
Thank you for your attention.
Faithfully yours
Eberhard Hafermalz
MTC-00032416
From: Pamela Schmidt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 6:56pm
Subject: Ending Clinton Anti-trust abuse
To whom it may concern:
You have my full support to do what is just and lawful to
correct any abuses allowed through the Clinton years. I know that
you will know just what to do.
Sincerely yours,
Pamela J. Schmidt
MTC-00032417
From: Dennis McKenna
To: sirs
Date: 1/7/02 8:09pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear Sirs,
I undrestand that there is finally a settlement that has been
reached in the Microsoft case and I can only say this:
Why has it taken so long? This entire case was misguided. As an
American citizen I cannot believe that we do not have something
better to do with our tax dollars than investigate a fine,
innovative American company that provides excellent products for
reasonable prices to all. What would the world be like without
Microsoft's innovation? And what, I ask was their crime? That they
were so good at what they did that they had little competition. This
was a natural monopoly which sooner or later would have come up
against natural competition. It's not the role of government to step
in and smash such a company. We should be providing a favorable
environment for more US companies to step up their level of
innovation and become the next Microsofts. Please go ahead and get
this thing over with so we can close the book on this embarrassing
chapter of US history.
Sincerely,
Dennis McKenna
4207 Lenzgrove Lane
La Canada, CA 91011
MTC-00032418
From: Mary Jo Reddick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We think it is a tough but fair settlement--for all parties
involved. Stop wasting the tax payers money-- competition is
wonderful for consumers like our family. We are an average working
family who appreciate good quality products at fair prices that
Microsoft has made available to us. We don't appreciate our hard
earned tax money being wasted on frivolous, vengeful lawsuits.
Enough already.
Donald and Mary Jo Reddick
Lancaster, CA
MTC-00032419
From: Michael Belcher
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/7/02 10:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael Belcher
po box 5681
pahrump, nv 89041-5681
January 8, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final
approval is clearly in the public interest.
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the
attacks
[[Page 29813]]
of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from this
lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this agreement,
which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather than
months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the
litigation would finally be exhausted.
The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors,
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products.
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft
programs compatible with their own.
Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft
application or element of an operating system and install other
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the
settlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even
covers issues and software that were not part of the original
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to
comply with the settlement.
This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes.
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle,
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
Michael Belcher
MTC-00032420
From: Nelsons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 10:43pm
Subject: It will be very good for the US economy if this case was
settled
It will be very good for the US economy if this case was settled
prior to the March hearings. The nine states that are holding out
are obviously trying to protect their companies in their own state.
e.g. Oracle, AOL, Sun Microsystems etc. They are putting themselves
above the consumer by delaying the settlement. All they want is
their pound of flesh, nothing more. It is getting so obvious that
hopefully the judge will see through it. It was a good thing the DOJ
made the effort to settle with Microsoft. The sooner it is over, the
better it will be for the stock market and the consuming public.
Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion.
Charles D Nelson
[email protected]
MTC-00032421
From: Jane Pehl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 6:47am
Subject: Microsoft
It is time to end the tyranny of the Clinton years! Get out of
the life of American business and taxpayers!! Why are you not
prosecuting true criminals like the Clintons and their accomplices
during their eight year crimes spree?
Jane Pehl
San Antonio, Texas
MTC-00032422
From: Rose Marie Lavelle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 8:07am
Subject: for all the people,not the few
Let us move on with the things of today and not the pass,end it
now!
ROBERT M.LAVELLE
122 WHISPERING PINE DR.
PALM COAST FL. 32164
MTC-00032424
From: Steve Sawyer
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02 9:19am
Subject: Microsoft anti-trust case
Greetings,
I have been involved in the IT industry since 1981. I watched
Microsoft, Apple and others work their way up the corporate ladder
with innovative ideas and hard work. They deserve much of the fruits
of their labor.
However, in Microsoft's case, they have been doing much more
harm than good to the consumer over the past several years. As a
graduate of the University of Oregon School of Business
Administration, I have watched with fascination the methods with
which Microsoft has eliminated competition and coerced vendors into
doing business Microsoft's way. All of this while their own products
continue to slide, in terms of quality and technical advancement.
The result is a two-edged sword. They spend time and resources
wiping out competitive ideas leaving little reason or incentive to
improve their own.
Then the Government and the courts comes along and
``endorses'' this approach by mandating toothless laws
with little or no enforcement. Microsoft is trying to do this with
Linux as well as others. Microsoft is a great company. Bill Gates
and crew should be applauded for what they have done for technology.
However, Microsoft has become a textbook example of why we have
rules governing monopolistic practices in this country. When Billy
Graham gets caught speeding he receives a ticket for speeding and he
pays the fine. Microsoft got caught and it is time to pay the fine.
Do America and Microsoft a favor and put a stop to the dark side
of Microsoft.
Thank you...
Steve
Steve Sawyer
Director of Internet Development
Market America, Inc.
[email protected]
MTC-00032425
From: Michael Sauber
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/8/02 9:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael Sauber
219 Hidden Creek Lane
North Aurora, Il 60542
January 8, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final
approval is clearly in the public interest.
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the
litigation would finally be exhausted.
The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors,
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products.
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft
programs compatible with their own.
Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft
application or element of an operating system and install other
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the
settlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software on their computers. It will also be easier to
[[Page 29814]]
substitute competitors' products after purchase as well. The
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified
to comply with the settlement.
This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes.
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle,
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
Michael L. Sauber
MTC-00032426
From: Charlotte Worden
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/8/02 10:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charlotte Worden
1821 2nd St
Lewiston, ID 83501
January 8, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final
approval is clearly in the public interest.
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the
litigation would finally be exhausted. The terms of the settlement
offer a fair resolution for all sides of this case: the DOJ, the
states, Microsoft, competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft
will not be broken up and will be able to continue to innovate and
provide new software and products. Software developers and Internet
service providers (ISPs), including competitors, will have
unprecedented access to Microsoft's programming language and thus
will be able to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft
application or element of an operating system and install other
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the
settlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even
covers issues and software that were not part of the original
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to
comply with the settlement.
This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes.
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle,
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
Charlotte Worden
MTC-00032427
From: Paula Benner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 10:37am
file:///C/win/temp/tmp.htn
I want to end Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse!
MTC-00032429
From: Ben Hughes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 2:11pm
Subject: Clinton Era
I would like to see the end of the Clinton era abuse of anti-
trust legislation and court action. Microsoft has provided jobs to
multitudes of people and made millionaires of another group who
started out as workers.
Thank you,
Sue & Ben Hughes
Lindale, Texas
MTC-00032430
From: Bob (038) Caryl Horstmeier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 4:17pm
Subject: GOVT. SHAKEDOWN OF MICROSOFT
DEAR WHO EVER AT JUSTICE DEPT;
I BELIEVE THAT MICRO SOFT DOES NOT RATE A SHAKE DOWN BY THE
GOVT. JUST BECAUSE MICROSOFT DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO SLICK WILLY. THE
REST OF THE WORLD IS WONDERING WHY WE SHAKE DOWN OUR BEST ACHIEVERS.
ROBERT HORSTMEIER, 112 STANTON STREET, DAVIS ILLINOIS,
61019-0183
[email protected]
MTC-00032432
From: ARTHUR HUPP
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 2:17am
Subject: E-Mail Settlement
Enough is Enough!!!!! Let's let Mircosoft get on with being a
successful company and quit wasting the taxpayers money!!!!
Art Hupp
MTC-00032433
From: Craig Madsen
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/9/02 7:32am
Subject: FW: Microsoft Antitrust Case
From: Craig Madsen
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 4:42 PM
To: ``[email protected]''
Subject:Microsoft Antitrust Case
Dear DOJ, etc.,
I am writing to put my 2 cents worth about the antitrust case
against Microsoft Corp.
I feel like Microsoft is using their OS dominance to stifle
every bit of competition possible. I totally agree with the 9 states
that are fighting this thing to the bitter end. I also don't agree
with the current settlement at all. For Microsoft to spend a bunch
of money for the schools does absolutely nothing to stop them from
continuing to do what they have been doing for years--except
try to catch up with Apple, Inc. in the school battles!! I also
don't mind spending my tax dollars to do whatever is necessary to
make them pay for what they have already done.
We watched them ``give away'' a browser and all but
kill a competitor(s). Tomorrow they start giving away databases, and
before long, who knows? If there was a competitor to the government,
they would buy them, reduce the price on whatever they were selling
to nothing and kill them off too. Once dead, they can raise the
price back to whatever they need to.
Do I want Microsoft dead? Probably not, however, I want them to
have to use the same playing field as the rest of the businesses in
america that don't control 90% of the operating system business.
Break them up. Make
them give out their source code to anyone, so we could all make
products as quickly as them!
p.s.
I was trying to send this to: microsoft.atr@usdoj as
well, but my e-mail package didn't like this. Do you know how I can
get a copy of this to them?
Thanks,
Craig Madsen
(801)-961-3045
155 North 400 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84103-1111
MTC-00032435
From: Mundlapati Jawahar
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 9:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mundlapati Jawahar
4759 e culver st
phoenix, az 85008
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy
litigation has
[[Page 29815]]
cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after
reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final approval is clearly in
the public interest.
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the
litigation would finally be exhausted.
The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors,
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products.
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft
programs compatible with their own.
Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft
application or element of an operating system and install other
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the
settlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even
covers issues and software that were not part of the original
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to
comply with the settlement.
This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes.
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle,
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
Mundlapati Jawahar
MTC-00032436
From: LOUIS TURRO
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 10:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
LOUIS TURRO
591 PALMER AVE
MAYWOOD, NJ 07607
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final
approval is clearly in the public interest.
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this
a
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.