# United States v. Microsoft Corporation; Public Comments; Notice (MTC-00032329 - MTC-00033867)

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A02-5355

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Notice
- **Published:** May 3, 2002
- **Citation:** 67 FR 29796

## 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

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A02-5355. Public record. Not legal advice.