United States v. Microsoft Corporation; Public Comments; Notice (MTC-00000001 - MTC-00003460)

[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2002)]

[Notices]

[Pages 23654-24289]

From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[FR Doc No: X02-120503]

MTC-00000001

From: Bud

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 11:15am

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Dear Sir or Madam:

The DOJ has sold the public down the river by not breaking up

Microsoft. Breaking the company up would not have lessened its

assets only its MONOPOLY POWER. The DOJ has partnered with George W.

Bush to repay Bill Gates for his generous campaign contributions to

him and the GOP party. There is nowhere the public can turn anymore

now that our Justice Department has sold out to politics. There is

no other explanation the public will believe.

You've made your bed with Bill, now sleep in it. A monetary fine

means nothing to the world's richest man_losing his power over

the industry does. As you attempt to settle with him, he is already

targeting LINUX for the Internet market_he has learned

nothing, except whom to contribute to for favors. You people can

spin it anyway you like, we, the public, see it for what it really

is. There is no longer equality under the law, there is no longer

equal enforcement of the law, the law is Dubya.

Harold VanSickle

Lewisburg, PA

MTC-1

MTC-00000002

From: Jordan, Bill

To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'

Date: 11/16/01 11:20am

Subject: Microsoft

I very much support the overturn of Judge Jackson's ill-advised

court ruling and the softening of the government's approach to

Microsoft. Gates and his company have built without question the

premier operating system and peripherals in the world. Would any of

us want to depend on other products? I wouldn't and suspect that

most people would line up on my side. Why do we try to penalize

successful companies who pay more and more taxes as they become more

successful?

Believe me, if any of Microsoft's competitors had built the same

so-called monopoly, they would be screaming like banshees if the

government or anyone else tried to break them into pieces. We

operate by the golden rule; whoever has the gold rules. That would

be Microsoft. Leave them alone and let them continue to make great

products, make lots of money, and pay lots of taxes so the

Department of Justice, among others, can exist.

Thanks for the opportunity to give my opinion. I love America

and our capitalistic system. There will always be big guys and

little guys, and no amount of governmental intervention will ever

make things even. I want to be president of my company, but maybe I

don't have what it takes to get to the top. Microsoft has what it

takes and has proved it in the marketplace. Why hasn't Netscape,

Linux, etc., etc. been able to do the same? Because they're not as

good.

Thanks,

MTC-2

MTC-00000003

From: David Reid

To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj .gov'

Date: 11/16/01 11:24am

Subject: against

I have reviewed the available details of the proposed settlement

with Microsoft and find, in my opinion, that is does little to serve

the public interest. What it does is serve Bill Gates and company

with a vaguely worded settlement that delivers a light tap on the

wrist, complete with a side wink. It appears to me to be just one

more case of Republicans serving their corporate support base at the

expense of those who actually VOTE.

David W Reid

Intelligent Business Automation, Inc.

847-921-8521 fax 630-214-3723

[email protected]

MTC-3

MTC-00000004

From: Kenneth Jarvis

To: Microsoft Case_Comments

Date: 11/16/01 11:26am

Subject: Windows WITHOUT Internet Explorer_Make they give us a

CHOICE.

Currently, MSoft has access to EVERY computer in the world

because they FORCE us to have Internet Explorer on our computers.

With this access their Monopoly will ONLY GET STRONGER.

I am a candidate for the Nevada Assembly District 18 and am

going to introduce a bill that will require Any Software Company

that sells software IN NEVADA to have Support IN NEVADA. Microsoft's

claim that they HAVE to hook Internet Explorer onto Windows is

FALSE. If they were forced to provide 2 versions of windows one WITH

IE and one WITHOUT IE we would have a choice.

As it is ALL computers that run Windows are FORCED to have IE

available, taking up valuable Disk space if we choose to run another

browser.

Thank you for your consideration.

Ken Jarvis

6420 E. Tropicana, #105

Las Vegas, NV 89122-75 16

[email protected]

Phone_702-454-0509

CC: Kevin Clarke

MTC-4

MTC-00000005

From: Bill McGaw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 11:26am

Subject: Microsoft

As a consumer, the settlement is a sell out to big money. I hope

the judge sees this and listens to the states that disagree with the

Feds. Bill McGaw

MTC-5

MTC-00000006

From: Don Williston

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 11:27am

Subject: settlement

My comments about the Microsoft settlement:

1. Unlike Standard Oil and American Tobacco, whose products were

static in design, Microsoft's product is dynamic, constantly

striving to be adequate.

2. The error in the action against Microsoft is not that

Microsoft was innocent, it is that the laws protecting Microsoft's

product(s) are not proper for the intellectual property

[[Page 23655]]

markets, and the appropriate remedies must come from the Congress

and not the Courts and not the Justice Department.

3. What Microsoft owns is not property at Common Law; instead is

property and property rights created by Congress. Article 1 Section

8 provides Congress with the power: To promote the progress of

science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors

and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and

discovenes.

4. The key work in the Constitution is LIMITED.

5. Secondly, the monopoly laws are to protect consumers, not

competitors. Congress should be encouraged to clarify the property

rights of copyright holders and patent holders, limiting their

authority to license through OEM's to consumers, and requiring that

the consumers have rights directly to the manufacturer. OUTLAW the

term re-seller. Require Microsoft to support its products free for a

period, perhaps no more than 3 years, but the three years runs from

the time of the final sale of the product (i.e. Windows 95 was last

sold as a new computer install when?, certainly more recently than

1999), not the time of original marketing. Tort laws have held

companies liable for products manufactured many, many years ago.

MTC-6

MTC-00000007

From: Ben Ross

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 11:27am

Subject: Bad Settlement

I wanted to buy the pared down version of Windows since day one.

This is an obvious case of bundling forced upon the consumer. Buying

Windows is buying much more than an operating system_it's

buying a way of life (any Microsoft president jumping around on a

stage will tell you that too.) I don't want a religion, a culture, a

virtual reality, or a new way of thinking, looking, or dealing with

the world. Thank you. I like to control that on my own. Just give me

the choice to buy the OS alone.

MTC-7

MTC-00000008

From: Harry Huff

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 11:30am

Subject: Proposed settlement

To whom it may concern:

It is my strong feeling that this proposed settlement makes a

travesty of the very notion of anti-trust law. It completely ignores

the evidentiary foundation of the case and does absolutely nothing

to impede Microsoft's continued stifling of innovation in the

software industry. There's nothing more to say; this proposed

settlement should be laughed out of court as the travesty of justice

that it represents. It responds to the finding that Microsoft is

both a monopoly and has seriously abused its monopoly status with

meaningless "remedies" that do nothing to alter the

fundamental practices by which Microsoft makes a laughingstock of

the notion of "free markets".

Sincerely,

Harry A. Huff

MTC-8

MTC-00000009

From: geraux

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 11:30am

Subject: MS settlement

Why do I continue to have the nagging thought that MicroSoft

will survive the antitrust suit in stronger, healthier condition

than before it was filed? Might it be the sympathetic treatment it

has received by the Bush administration? What folly for naught!

MTC-9

MTC-00000010

From: Will Page

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 11:30am

Subject: the focus is off on why MS is a monopoly

Hi

From what Joe Public can tell about this case is that the big

cause for alarm is that microsoft bundles application software with

the sale of its OS. I do not believe that this should be the sole

focus of why MS business violates anti-trust law. Have you ever

tried to buy an PC with intel architecture without buying MS's

operating system? Do not bother, it is impossible for consumers

(businesses may do this when they buy machines en mass). I cannot

buy a new machine to install another OS on it without buying Windows

with it. If I already own windows and my hardware becomes outdated,

I cannot decommission my dinosaur and install the OS I already own

onto my new hardware. This is not a fair marketplace. Other superior

operating systems have come and gone because of this practice and it

really pisses me off. It is a shame, because microsoft actually

makes some fine, high quality products. They do not have to practice

business this way to remain profitable.

Cheers

William Page

Principal IT technical Analyst

703.227.7360

MTC-10

MTC-00000011

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: ASKDOJ

Date: 11/16/01 11:37am

Subject: Mr. Ashcroft

Dear Mr. Ashcroft:

I am writing to you as a very concerned citizen. I appreciated

the job you have done, and think you have done well. This is in

reference to the Microsoft case.

I am only a concerned citizen, and I have no personal or

financial interest in this case whatsoever.

I want you to know that I am TOTALLY ASHAMED OF THE UNTIED

STATES GOVERNMENT for continuing the prosecution of Microsoft.

Microsoft has worked hard to develop an operating system and

software that is reasonably priced, and has changed all of our

lives. They should NOT be punished for innovation.

The government SHOULD NOT be wasting taxpayer dollars on this

case! I URGE you to stop this from continuing.

I will make sure that I vote AGAINST anyone in office that

continues this prosecution of Microsoft. We have far worse problems

that we should be spending money on, that are not even be addressed.

Please feel free to contact me regarding this,

Kindest regards,

Chris Hudgins

Dallas, Texas

CC: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw

MTC-11

MTC-00000012

From: Carolyn Martin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 11:38am

Subject: Antitrust case

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am writing in response to the antitrust case against

Microsoft. I've used computers regularly for nearly 20 years now,

and been exposed to numerous software programs in this time.

Microsoft by far, manufactures superior products, and offers great

user-friendly tutorials to clients to ensure peak performance. No

other company can claim their product operates better than

Microsoft's line of OS products. And recently, I did buy a new

computer with the new XP software. When I loaded the CD burning

software, Roxio, into my computer to copy some music, it failed

repeatedly, even tho I selected it as my default software. Finally,

frustrated with Roxio, and the lack of instructions to overcome

problems with the software, I removed the program, and used the

Microsoft XP CD burning software. No problems whatsoever, and it has

some great enhancements that I never even could've imagined.

As a former DJ, I was extremely impressed. Once again, the

reason why Microsoft has the undisputable market lead is because

they make superior products, and people want them. They should be

commended for such efforts & not reprimanded because they are

"too big." They are a model for many American companies

to emulate!

Sincerely,

Carolyn O. Martin

[email protected]

MTC-12

MTC-00000013

From: Tony Anton

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 11:40am

Subject: Microsoft "settlement"

An even casual study of the Findings of Fact after the finish of

the trial indicates that a differentiation must be made between a

computer operating system and applications which run on that system.

The crux of Microsoft's anti-competitive actions lies in the

intermingling of applications and the operating system. In lieu of

breaking up Microsoft, the company must be restricted to selling the

operating system separately from its applications. This, with the

provisions of the settlement opening the API's to developers, would

generate competition and greatly benefit the consumer. Other

operating systems would now also be able to complete, affording

still more choices to the consumer.

Anthony D. Anton

2223-B East Santa Clara

[[Page 23656]]

Santa Ana, CA 92705

714-972-1729

MTC-13

MTC-00000014

From: Mark W Noakes

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 11:42am

Subject: microsoft decision

To whom it may concern,

I understand that you are looking for commentary on the recent

Microsoft decision.

Frankly, I believe that the planned decision does not go far

enough to constrain Microsoft. Microsoft has already proven that

they have ignored previous oversight/probation initiatives and that

they will continue their previous practices. Why should the govt

trust them? Their new operating system, Windows XP, which further

degrades customer choices, proves MS's continued intent to ignore

any restrictions. I assume that you are aware that Microsoft is now

threatening patent violation action against companies that work to

provide software interoperability with Microsoft products. The best

most recent example is Windows Media.

I would challenge the argument that we should let Microsoft off

the hook because it's the best thing out there. I use Microsoft

Office because I have to, not because I think it's great. The sole

reason is for the sake of compatibility with so many of the people

that we communicate with across the country. I find Office in

general and MS Word in particular to be a bloated poorly performing

package that I spend way too much time trying to undo what it thinks

I want it to do instead of what I want it to do. That's the general

spirit of MS; they try to tell you what you want instead of letting

you decide what you want and then force it on the end user.

Please continue to pursue Microsoft in the spirit of the

original antitrust suit.

Sincerely,

Mark W. Noakes

Mark W Noakes

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Engineering Science and Technology Division

Robotics Group, R&D Staff

Box 2008, Bldg 7606, M56426

Oak Ridge, TN 3783 1-6426

PH: 865.574.5695

FX: 865.576.2081

EM: [email protected]

MTC-14

MTC-00000015

From: Patrick Brewer

To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'

Date: 11/16/01 11:42am

Subject: Totally inadequate

The agreement isn't nearly strong enough. Looking at

Microsoft actions and past settlements over the last decade, an the

current settlement is clearly not enough to keep Microsoft from

abusing its position in the industry. Its hard for the consumer to

see how they are harmed, but its much like the break of Ma' Bell.

After the end of the phone monopoly you start to see much more

innovation in the telecom sector. The same would be true with

Microsoft.

Patrick

MTC-15

MTC-00000016

From: eXWorld Internet News

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 11:42am

Subject: microsoft is getting off easy...

I don't know what happened, but the DOJ has sold us all out.

Once this settlement passes, we are all screwed. Microsoft is simply

too big, too powerful and has no problem with continuing to abuse

its monopoly over others. Unless you break up the company, no

punishment will be effective enough.

Microsoft is too big ... it can get into any industry at any

time. No one can stop them because they have funds to absorb years

of losses if necessary, in order to kill or take over competition.

Xbox is a classic example of this. Only Microsoft would have the

balls to enter the video game market at such a late stage, and take

on power house companies like Sony and Nintendo. Why do you think

Sega left the market? They had no chance knowing Microsoft was

coming. Something needs to be done about this company.

MTC-16

MTC-00000017

From: Gary Sparks

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 11:44am

Subject: Anti trust

Sir or Madam

I have watched the proceedings against Microsoft with wonder and

disbelief. Punishing a company that has created one of the most

innovative and beneficial products in the history of man for

protecting and promoting its product is amazing to me.

This is not a case of "ma bell" having all of the

land facilities locked up forcing the consumer to use their services

and products but of a company in a new industry that has a

significant head start. They have every right to protect their

market share as well as keeping the "formula" safe and

intact for their operating system. Their are truly other

alternatives for consumers who wish not to use their products but

the consumer has made the overwhelming choice to use the superior

product.

This case reeks of special interest and of politicians again

looking for the handout at election time. Internet and word

processing technology is a gold mine that many would like to reap

the benefits of but at the expense of a company that has done the

due diligence and brought forward a product that appeals to

consumers, businesses and yes even Governments. Don't punish a

company for protecting and promoting a product that thru time has

proven to be a valuable component of daily life throughout the world

and dig a little deeper into your "soul" and do what is

right. Free trade and enterprise is based upon the

"right" of a company to grow and flourish.

This industry has more than enough room for someone to come up

with a better widgit but until that time don't hamstring someone for

protecting their own. I wish someone in this instance would tell

their opponents that they need to quit crying and make that next

earth shattering step into the 21st century but don't snip at the

heels of those who were brave enough to try.

Thank you very much

Gary Sparks

MTC-17

MTC-00000018

From: Joe Maranzano

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 11:44am

Subject: Consumer Comment

I am a user of Microsoft operating systems and applications in

my small business. I believe the proposed settlement is inadequate

to protect consumers and will not help much needed competition,

especially in the application space. I have selected many non-

Microsoft applications because of their features and reliability.

But I have found it increasingly more difficult to stay with these

applications as I have upgraded to new Operating Systems. They are

often not available at the same time as the OS nor do they take

advantage of the new OS features. I would strongly recommend that

you reconsider your agreement decision. I would favor a ruling that

forced Microsoft to make the OS sources available publicly so all

vendors have an equal opportunity to use the capabilities. I worked

in the early days of UNIX and in that experience consumers got the

very best applications at the time because of the open source to the

OS.

Joseph F. Maranzano

SPMT, Inc.

CC: Joe Maranzano, Gwynedd Maranzano, Tim Theiler

MTC-18

MTC-00000019

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 11:45am

Subject: Comments on Microsoft Case

The Declaration of Independence proclaims that the government's

fundamental purpose is to protect the rights of the individual, and

that each individual has an inalienable right to the pursuit of

happiness. Throughout America's history, this noble idea has

protected the individual's right to pursue his own happiness by

applying his energy to productive work, trading the products of his

effort on a free market and rising as far as his abilities carry

him.

Over the past century, however, this freedom has been under

attack, and one notorious avenue of this attack has been the

antitrust laws. Under the guise of "protecting the

public," these laws have allowed envious competitors and

power-hungry officials to attack successful businessmen for the

crime of being successful. It has led to the ugly spectacle of the

creative geniuses of the business world_the men who have made

this country great_being branded as oppressive tyrants, whose

hard-won business empires must be broken to pieces and subjected to

the control of government regulators.

The Justice Department's current suit against Microsoft is the

latest example of this trend. It is based on envy for the productive

ability of Microsoft and its founder, Bill Gates. The result of this

suit, if successful,

[[Page 23657]]

will be to deprive Mr. Gates of his right to control his own

company, and to deprive the company of its ownership and control of

its own products.

The Justice Department's case_and indeed the entire

edifice of antitrust law_is based on the bizarrely inverted

notion that the productive actions of individuals in the free market

can somehow constitute "force," while the coercive

actions of government regulators can somehow secure

"freedom."

The truth is that the only kind of "monopoly" that

can form in a free market is one based on offering better products

at lower prices, since under a free market even monopolies must obey

the law of supply and demand. Harmful, coercive monopolies are the

result, not of the operation of the free market, but of government

regulations, subsidies, and privileges which close off entry to

competitors. No business can outlaw its competitors_only the

government can.

I hold that Microsoft has a right to its own property; that it

has the authority, therefore, to bundle its

properties_including Windows 95 and Internet Explorer_in

whatever combination it chooses, not by anyone's permission, but by

absolute right. I hold that to abridge this right is to attack every

innovator's right to the products of his effort, and to overthrow

the foundations of a free market and of a free society.

I do not want to live in a country where achievement is resented

and attacked, where every innovator and entrepreneur has to fear

persecution from dictatorial regulators and judges, enforcing

undefined laws at the bidding of jealous competitors. I realize that

our lives and well-being depend on the existence of a free market,

in which innovators and entrepreneurs are free to rise as far as

their ability can carry them, without being held down by arbitrary

and unjust government regulations. As a concerned citizen, I ask

that the Justice Department's case against Microsoft be dismissed. I

call for a national debate over the arbitrary and unjust provisions

of the antitrust laws and for an end to the practice of persecuting

businessmen for their success.

John Ziebell

73 Braemar Drive

Elk Grove Village, IL 60007

MTC-19

MTC-00000020

From: Alexander P. Whitehouse

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 11:46am

Subject: Microsoft settlement_feedback

I am a long time individual computer software consumer. I am

very concerned about your settlement with Microsoft and especially

fearful that it will be meaningless in practice. I oppose your

current settlement terms. Microsoft's clear track record would

suggest they always act in bad faith. I would expect Microsoft to

continue to find loopholes in laws and agreements. Microsoft's

marketing and public relations releases are clearly "big

lies". They will find ways to circumvent any agreement to

continue their monopoly business practices which stifle competition.

That company has more money behind them than really good or

innovative products. Much more severe penalties are in order.

Alexander P. Whitehouse

Everett, Washington 98203

MTC-20

MTC-00000021

From: Daniel J. Yurcovic

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 11:46am

Subject: Settlement Comments

To Whom It May Concern:

I applaud the efforts of both Microsoft and the DOJ. Breaking up

MS would have stifled innovation. This shows that the American

economy does work, protects companies and mostly important the

consumer.

Way to go!

Dan Yurcovic

Daniel J. Yurcovic

Project Engineer_Information Systems

Ferris, Baker Watts, Inc.

100 Light Street, 9th Floor

Baltimore, MD 21201

410.659.2589_Office

[email protected]

MTC-21

MTC-00000022

From: Chris McGrew

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 11:47am

Subject: Settlement thoughts

I feel that the Dept. of Justice has let the common people down.

Microsoft's punishment is nothing more than a light slap on the

wrist. This will not help any business that is trying to compete

with MS. With MS's history of giving away a competing product for

nothing until a smaller competitor is out of business. This then

allows them to charge any price and the consumer will have no where

else to turn.

Microsoft is a monopoly (only good result of this case so far),

and the bundling practice is bad for everyone except Microsoft. I

don't blame them and I honestly believe that any company in their

position would have done the same thing, but they are the company in

that position and the Department of Justice has the responsibility

to protect smaller businesses and the consumer by placing fair

restrictions on this type of practice. Even if those curbs are

temporary and reviewed based on competition in the future by

independent parties.

Chris McGrew

MTC-22

MTC-00000023

From: Cris Hanna

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 11:47am

Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Suit Remedies

I strongly disagree with the actions you (the US Government and

the Justice Dept) are taking in this matter. I am IT professional

with over 20 years of experience and your suit appears to be all

about choice. Well guess what, there are lots of choices. If I don't

care to run Microsoft Windows with Internet Explorer, I don't have

to. And if I do and want to use some other browser, nothing prevents

that either. I can choose Linux, Unix, Sun Micrographics, Apple/

MacIntosh, and several others both on the workstations and the

Servers.

Microsoft and Windows are popular because they create good

products which have made it easier today than ever for everyone from

1st and 2nd graders to senior citizens to use and own a computer.

You don't have to know how to configure a TCP/IP interface on your

home computer and what choices to make when you need an internet

browser if you are a consumer when you choose Microsoft's various

consumer level products. They have integrated it specifically to

make it easier.

But if I'm running Windows on my computer and I want to install

Netscape and use it, I can. If I want to use AOLs "integrated

browser" I can do that. My choices are limitless, whether

Microsoft chooses to offer an integrate product, or a stripped down

version.

Why are you wasting my valuable tax money pursuing this action.

Bill Gates is the richest man in the world because the American

public (and the rest of the world) tried it and liked it, not

because there isn't any other choice as you try to infer. Bill Gates

through his foundation is doing more than anyone else in the world

with regard to charitable contributions in a variety of areas and

all around the world. And because of his wealth, he pays more taxes,

which goes to pay your salaries, so why not pursue something

important. You want to talk about Monopolies and Anti-Trust... what

about AOL/Time Warner

Cris Hanna

Belleville, IL

MTC-23

MTC-00000024

From: I am the only Glare

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 11:48am

Subject: Thoughts

I think that the antitrust settlement is very sufficient and

enough resources have been wasted on this case.

I, as a consumer, do not feel hampered by Microsoft at all. Many

companies have chances to enter markets or come up with competing

operating systems or browsers and beat Microsoft at their own war.

They haven't. This settlement will allow the government to

settle their needs and prove they didn't waste valuable taxpayer

money and it will remind Microsoft that they are still the best and

why everyone wants to take them down.

Stephen "You're only going to live this life once, so live

it the way you want"Get more from the Web.

FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com

MTC-24

MTC-00000025

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 11:48am

Subject: Anti-trust suit against Microsoft

I feel that this whole action against Microsoft is not only an

assault against Microsoft, but it is an assault on the free market

economy, the capitalism of this country that has made this one of

the most prosperous countries in the world.

Microsoft is good, they have a good product that people want and

other

[[Page 23658]]

companies want to be associated with it. In a competitive business

environment there will always be winners and losers, it's the nature

of the beast, and there are far too many whiney people in this

country today who seem to feel that their wants are more important

than anyone else's; 'I want so you have to gimme." These

are simply spoiled brats, bullies whining because somebody else has

a better product (or toy) than theirs. That's life in the big

city! To sue a company because they have a preferred product is a

waste of everyone's time and money. I have an invention, and those

who know about it want it, and there is nothing else on the market

like it. If I was forced to give it up or give my secrets away

because some whiney cry baby didn't think of it first I would feel

this whole country had gone to hell in a hand basket, and it would

be time for me to leave it.

Barbara De Shann

Aliso Viejo, CA

Every day is a new adventure....

CC: [email protected]@inetgw

MTC-25

MTC-00000026

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 11:49am

Subject: penalties and process

(1) Please help me understand what penalty is being applied to

Microsoft for the illegal tactics they have used to put other

companies out of business and achieve its monopoly status.

(2) The Microsoft pattern has been to deny wrong-doing in the

face of overwhelming evidence and use the legal system to delay and

diminish any consequences. If there is no clear process to expedite

claims against Microsoft in the future while Microsoft is denying

wrong-doing, then how is the settlement going to be effective?

MTC-26

MTC-00000027

From: Chuck Pfeiffer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 11:49am

Subject: Unfair trade practices

The settlement is a win-win for Microsoft, and a big lose-lose

for consumers. Microsofts' illegal dominance and unfair practices

are evident from the earliest days of it's inception when it

deceived IBM with the lack of an OS and scrambled to put one

together after the fact.

It is further illustrated when the Hard Disk manufacturers

devised a better method for the technical architecture of disk

storage. Microsoft rejected their proposal keeping the hardware

industry firmly in its' grasp. Then there was the use of unpublished

code MS used to its advantage in developing proprietary software,

while forcing the competition to program long subroutines around

these discrepancies. MS continually disavowed this practice in

public disclosure, until it was publicly documented by credible

software experts.

Microsoft has continually advanced, and still does, the practice

of marketing vaporware to stymie the competition and engender

hesitation in corporate and end user purchases. This had forced

other companies to fold, sell out, or otherwise cancel their

development plans as a result.

The debacle over Java, and legal battles with Sun, have caused

an otherwise beneficial software platform for uniting all types of

machines and code into a single working environment was the furthest

thing that Microsoft wanted. It would have severely undermined their

current dominance and future plans to continue with that strategy.

So MS developed their own form of code and imposed it on the market.

Sun has a much system, but it was a threat to MS and could not be

allowed to stand in their way.

The entire computer industry, technology, and the many other

side benefits of this new technology has revolutionized the world.

However, it has suffered long periods of indecision and product

development as a result of MS's desire and bullying to dominate the

industry.

There are many examples of these facts along the highway of

development littered with the corporate corpses of those who tried

to offer better products and strategies. They were run over, bought

out, silenced, and even worse threatened with protracted legal

battles to which MS has a bottomless pit of funding for legal

engagement and harassment.

The best strategy would have been to spit the company into two

parts, but this will not happen unfortunately.

They will continue to dominate the world with it's poorly

written, unsecured, and otherwise buggy Windows software systems and

architecture. They have as yet been unable to develop code that is

anywhere as secure as Novell. Novell is just one more example of a

market that MS has targeted for domination. Sure Novell made some

fatal mistakes, but they still have a much better networking

structure that is more secure than MS could ever hope to achieve.

Settling this case is giving Microsoft the green light to continue

it's illicit and illegally gained monopoly and stranglehold of the

industry.

Yours truly,

Chuck Pfeiffer

MTC-27

MTC-00000028

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 11:50am

Subject: proposed settlement

November 16, 2001

Dear Sir or Madam:

If this email address is open for the general public to offer

opinions on the proposed settlement with Microsoft, I would like to

add mine. I have worked in the computer industry since 1985. I

remember the days when a disk formatted on one proprietary version

of DOS did not run on another. I also remember when computers were

too expensive and too cumbersome for the technology challenged.

This all changed as a result of Microsoft's vision.

Computers are in almost every home and most people do not know what

they would do without one. I shudder to think at what would happen

if the penalty were to break up Microsoft or if the penalty was so

severe that they would shut down their operation.

The proposed settlement is a good mix of punishment to ensure

they do not engage in further predatory practices and ensuring that

the volatile world of information technology does not take a giant

step backwards.

Thank you,

Edward W. Scott

Computer Manger

Madsen, Kneppers, and Associates

303.745.9990 - work phone

MTC-28

MTC-00000029

From: Lan Bragg

To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'

Date: 11/16/01 11:52am

Subject: Microsoft

Really, really disappointed in the settlement Justice has made

with Microsoft. The evidence was clear, the history of Microsoft

disregarding any penalties imposed upon it is clear and the

offending practices continue. Justice has sold out the American

consumer. The only way to get Gates and his company to stop is to

disengage the operating system from the applications software. You

have not only abandoned that option you have reduced the penalties

to meaningless self-monitoring. No one believes that after years of

abusing and ignoring the Justice Department, the recent settlement

will suddenly make Microsoft behave. Even less do we believe that

the Justice Department will actually employ resources toward

monitoring and controlling Microsoft, much less impose fines that

will matter.

We trust the government to step in when a company has proved

themselves to be untrustworthy, to have severely injured their

customers and to have taken from the market any other option or

choice in the form of a true competitor. Microsoft has done all

these things. If you don't believe this it can only be because

you do not use a personal computer. I have many Microsoft

applications on my computers. None of them work together. Errors and

crashes are constant. Explanations and support are rare. True

support costs $295 per incident. The most devastating viruses out

today exploit the faults of Microsoft's software. Microsoft sells

inferior products only because the government has allowed a monopoly

to exist and grow out of control and now refuses to correct or even

truly acknowledge the mistakes that have led us here.

Microsoft and it's leaders are arrogant, selfish entities that

cannot be trusted to monitor or control themselves. The Justice

Department was our last hope. You have abandoned us when the

evidence was clear. We are greatly disappointed. You should be

ashamed.

Loni Bragg

CC: Lori Bragg,Dad_AOL (E-mail),Chris Pickett (E-mai...

MTC-29

MTC-00000030

From: Leslie Label

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 11:56am

Subject: My comment

Dear Sir or Madam:

Thank you for this opportunity to comment about the Microsoft

settlement. The

[[Page 23659]]

settlement should address MS bundling of Internet Explorer with

windows, MS preventing changes to windows to prefer it's own

products (specifically problems of associating of .html to netscape

comrnunicator),sabotaging of 3rd party products like Real Player.

Sincerely,

Leslie Lobel

MTC-30

MTC-00000031

From: Charles Akemann

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 12:01pm

Subject: Please get off Microsoft's back.

Please get off Microsoft's back.

Charles Akemann

MTC-31

MTC-00000032

From: Cranford, Stephen C CIV

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 12:02pm

Subject: Disappointed in compromise

I'm extremely disappointed in the comprise proposed by the

Justice Department. Microsoft, even with the threat of the Justice

department hanging over their heads, has continued, in the Microsoft

XP product, to conduct illegal trading practices. Specifically,

Microsoft is packaging free firewall software into it's OS. Like a

drug dealer hooking the new unsuspecting junky, Microsoft has

announced that it will provide the software free for a short period

of time. The new junkies, I mean Users, will become accustomed to

the firewall interface, software venders will write software that

can work with the product, and then Microsoft will start charging

for its use. Why would a consumer go out and obtain a similar

product when Microsoft is already giving it to them bundled in their

OS, free? The answer is, they won't.

I was disappointed that the breakup of Microsoft was pushed off

the list of penalties for the company. Their OS is substandard to

almost every other OS on the market. It lacks administrative support

for enterprise usage, and even after stealing innovations from all

the other OS's (to many to name), it lacks ease of use and

reliability. Just look at how users in your own office fix problems

on their Personal Computers. I bet it is the new and improved

Microsoft way, they reboot them. Before Microsoft, it was rarely

necessary to reboot a machine, just to fix a problem. Downtime in

the office was almost non-existent. Even with its proven track

record of crashing unexpectedly, it is still forcing it's way in to

our nations datacenters. I feel the only reason that it has managed

to penneate into every corner of the market place is due to their

office products and the need to provide compatibility for them.

Since their office products are so tied into their OS, a user is

required to buy their OS to run their office products. Other people

wanted to share documents and information, so they bought similar

office software and now Microsoft is everywhere.

A truly open market would have Microsoft building their office

products for all commercial OS's ( Solaris, Linux, HP-UX, MAC). The

only way that can happen is if Microsoft Office and the other

Microsoft software is excised from the Microsoft OS and their

profits are not tied together.

My perfect IT world is one where I have the choice to choose the

best OS. The choice to add any software package that I want, and

have that software compatible with all other similar software

packages.

MTC-32

MTC-00000033

From: Kristian Rickert

To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'

Date: 11/16/01 12:04pm

Subject: Please explain

Can you please tell me what the settlement contains and how it

will prevent MS from it's unfair advantage?

Their code is billions of lines long, their projects are

hundreds of thousands. How can 3 people going through the

corporation really monitor what they are doing? It's impossible

unless they move nearly the speed of light.

Besides, if they break the rules again, you just extend the

penalty by 2 years?

I'm disappointed in our government and how they are handling the

case. They are considered guilty, and the only punishment the

government is imposing is not a punishment, but preventive measures

that are not guaranteed to work Please consider the tech-heavy

states' opinions. If competition is to thrive again, and help our

economy it will be the tech-heavy states that will be the ones who

bring it back.

We're in bad economical times now. You can help bring it back.

MTC-33

MTC-00000034

From: Terry Moore-Read

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 12:07pm

Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlement

This settlement is bad and will do nothing to alter microsofts

behaviour and does nothing to make restitution for their previous

unlawful conduct. The main problems as I see it are

1) the term is too short_given that most of the

restrictions come into play at some future date (the release of

windows xp service pack 1) the restrictions will likely only be in

place for 3-4 years.

2) The document is riddled with vagueness and get out clauses.

Where microsoft is required to describe the ways its software and

communications protocols work it is also allowed to withold any

information which could compromise security. It is easy to argue

that any knowledge of how a network protocol works could compromise

security and sidestep this whole provision.

3) All previous illegal conduct is essentially excused as long

as they stick to the terms of this agreement_this seems very

wrong_essentially corporate probation with no real punishment

at all.

4) Microsoft has a history of flagrant non-compliance with such

consent decrees_this whole case started because of their

refusal to comply with the previous settlement. The talk of the

government seeking criminal penalties and civil fines should

microsoft not comply with this agreement gives me little

comfort_what criminal penalties where imposed for breaking of

previous agreements?

As a minimum any acceptable settlement must include an element

of punishment of both the company and its board of directors for

operating in an illegal manner.

Terry Moore-Read

9812 E 4th Ave

Spokane WA 99206

(these are my opinions not my employer's)

This message and any attachments have been scanned for viruses

during transmission from Lukins & Annis, PS.

MTC-34

MTC-00000035

From: Paul E Keane

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 12:07pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Microsoft was found guilty by the trial judge.

The government settlement is less than a slap on the wrist.

The oversight panel is toothless.

Microsoft continues its anti competitive behavior

The proposed settlement fails to meet the seriousness of the

crime(s).

Paul E Keane

2253 Franklin

San Francisco, CA 94109

MTC-35

MTC-00000036

From: Richard Molen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 12:08pm

Subject: Microsoft sanctions

Justice Dept.,

Nothing less than dividing Microsoft's operating system group

from its applications group will ensure that they don't use tactics

such as inventing non-standard standards (and not properly sharing

them).

Their development tools division should probably become a third

group (or at least in the application group). This is what has given

them an unfair advantage over application software vendors. They

will continue to have this advantage even with full-disclosure of

their 'standard' interfaces due to the fact that they

will have first knowledge of them. Furthermore, I do not believe

that they will properly share all information needed for a

competitor to properly interface to their software.

Current Microsoft practice continues to assert Microsoft

'standards' in place of existing ones, even while this

case is in court! C# is one of the latest examples of this.

From the business side, one has to wonder what legal competitive

advantage a non-disclosure agreement has to offer. Microsoft

certainly abused this medium and should be summarily punished for it

by preventing them from making any more such agreements.

While I admire Microsoft's business vision of selling flashy,

mediocore software to the largest, if not most technically ignorant,

population, I still have to wonder just how much Microsoft's success

has set back the software industry. IBM's OS/2 and various unix

operating systems as well as some well desgined real-time operating

systems still

[[Page 23660]]

offer greater robustness and easier operation and troubleshooting

than MS Window's.

My fear is that Microsoft's flashy system and sleazy business

practices will continue to obscure superior operating systems (like

it obscured OS/2 Warp). Their applications will still be prefered

over competitors, even if their competitors do actually get the

correct interface information, if only because the Microsoft product

will be perceived to work more seemlessly.

In the end, it is my hope that the Justice Department dispenses

true justice, not just a slap on the hand of Microsoft that kicks

all their competitors in the teeth and ruthlessly manipulates an

unsavy public.

Sincerely,

Richard V. Molen

Sr. Software Engineer

[email protected]

Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals

http://personals.yahoo.com

MTC-36

MTC-00000037

From: Hugh Ross

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 12:08pm

Subject: Bitterly Disappointed with Proposed MS Settlement

I understand that this is the address to which I may address

comments to the DOJ on the proposed settlement agreement.

I am very disappointed and strongly opposed to the proposed

settlement. I firmly believe that the only way to ensure fair

competition is to separate the applications and operating systems

divisions of Microsoft. Any thing less will, I am convinced, not

work, especially in light of Microsoft's past performance.

Additionally, I feel that Microsoft is not being appropriately

penalized for it's past behavior.

As a consumer, I feel that I have been sold out by the DOJ. I am

very disappointed.

Hugh Ross, JD, MD

University of Michigan Health System

Department of Anesthesiology

MTC-37

MTC-00000038

From: bbagley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 12:10pm

Subject: Trust dept

what a waste of my tax dollars! how could someone so guilty be

allowed to escape?

gates was even more guilty than oj simpson and you let him off.

i hope your legal careers are destroyed by your disregard for the

public, how big of a percentage does gates have to have to be a

monopoly?

sickening. b3

MTC-38

MTC-00000039

From: Rich Schaefer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 12:14pm

Subject: The DOJ is wrong with in this case.

To whom it may concern:

I don't know where to begin. I am a republican. I work for a

computer distribution company, voted for Bush, am all for capitalism

and our way of life. However, it is clear that this Department of

Justice is just out of touch with the real issue of this case. This

was not a case about web browsers. It is a case about a company that

enjoys a monopoly status, has clearly abused it and as a result has

eliminated any competition and innovation. This all has come at the

expense of the American consumer and fair competition in an open

market economy.

There is little doubt that Microsoft is a monopoly. Two courts

have already rendered this in their opinions. If one visits a retail

store and buys an IBM compatible computer, there is no choice

regarding the operating system. You will buy a computer with a

Microsoft operating system.

If I recall my college days as a political science major, the

Sherman Anti-Trust Act was signed into law to prevent any one

company from having an unfair advantage. Further, the core of this

act was to ensure competition in the market place. The logic is

competition benefits the consumer, establishes fair pricing and a

market value for a product or service as well as the natural

creation of new companies/industries and thus more jobs. The

overriding goal is a diverse market place operating under a diverse

economy while keeping America gainfully employed and spending back

into the economy. Thus, all benefit. It appears the DOJ attorneys

should crack open a Constitutional Law text and brush over the fine

points of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, it's impact upon commerce and

it's application to the present, as this may have been forgotten.

How is this hurting competition and consumers? Microsoft as a

monopoly is free to charge whatever they want for their operating

systems and applications. And this they do. Microsoft distributes

it's product three ways; by selling to name brand computer

manufacturers, through "channel' distribution and finally in

retail outlets. Name brand computer manufacturers (Dell, Compaq,

IBM, Toshiba, etc) pay about one third less for operating systems

and application software than a channel distributor, like Tech Data,

Ingram Micro, ASI or D&H, even though name brand manufacturers

and channel distributors are purchasing roughly the same number of

operating systems and application software from Microsoft. This

unfair and predatory pricing policy Microsoft maintains is unfairly

exploiting the consumer by ultimately charging them substantially

more. This pricing scheme is ultimately putting small distributors

and independent businessmen and women out of business. Quite

frankly, they cannot compete with name brand products because of the

outrageous prices they are forced to pay for the same operating

systems and applications, being purchased by channel distribution in

the same volume as name brand companies.

If anyone has been paying attention, they would have realized

that many independent computer resellers have had no choice but to

close their doors this year because they cannot compete. Even in bid

situations, where the federal and state governments, are supposed to

show favor to the "small, minority owned, disadvantaged

business," these very people cannot fairly compete because of

the inflated prices they must pay for Microsoft operating systems

and applications.

I say to you that these monopolistic behaviors on the part of

Microsoft have a ripple effect through out the entire industry. As a

result, the backbone of the American economy, the small businessman,

is being destroyed. It is hard to fathom the DOT not opening their

eyes and seeing reality.

I find it equally hard to understand that, under normal

circumstances, when a company manufacturers a product, they are in

liable and responsible for it's support. However, Microsoft totally

avoids this responsibility. Instead, they force the hardware

manufacturer to do this for them. For example, if I own a computer

(and I do) and have problems with the operating system, why is it I

am forced to get support from my hardware vendor? My hardware vendor

did not make the operating system. They are responsible for the

hardware. In stead, if I must turn to Microsoft, who has the

tenacity to call me a customer, for technical support they will

promptly ask me for a credit card number before I can even speak to

a technician. This is Microsoft's standard operating procedure. It

is yet another example of them taking advantage of their monopoly

status and the consumer being hurt by it. Microsoft is set up to

collect money and little else.

On top of that, Microsoft's paranoid history is one of wreckage.

Any company that ever developed a product that Microsoft saw as a

real or imagined threat, that company was either swallowed or put

out of business. Microsoft used their monopoly leverage and lack of

competition in the operating environment arena to destroy the

problem. Untold product innovations have been destroyed before they

were even imagined. Untold fortunes were never realized and an

untold number of high paying, rewarding jobs for the American

economy were never realized. Consumers and technical innovation have

again been compromised by monopolistic behavior.

This Department of Justice and John Ashcroft should be ashamed

of themselves. The bottom line is this whole fiasco will return to

federal court a few years down the road. It will make this

administration look primitive and out of touch with today's business

and legal climate. It is clear that this administration's DOJ is

clearly in over it's head with respect to subject matter of

information technology.

Respectfully,

Rich Schaefer

Brick, New Jersey

MTC-39

MTC-00000040

From: bradrichardson @mac.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 12:14pm

Subject: Remedies inadequate

As a worker in the technology industry, I am disappointed in the

proposed remedies in the Microsoft case. Microsoft will not cease

it's anti-competitive behavior voluntarily, and is continuing to

enter markets with inferior products, using it's dominant market

[[Page 23661]]

position to eliminate competition in those markets (see the current

PDA wars). When Internet Explorer was introduced, it was very

inferior to the current market leader (Netscape Navigator).

Microsoft then proceeded to give their product away (Can anyone say

"predatory pricing"?) with the sole goal of eliminating

Netscape so they can dictate how the internet is used. If they end

up owning 95% of the browser market, as they do the desktop market

now, they can ignore internet standards and become a standard unto

themselves (which is already happening). Also, the one competing

consumer platform, the Apple Macintosh Operating System, is said to

only survive due to Microsoft Office being developed for that

platform. In short, Microsoft is no longer concerned about

competing, nor just profit, but control. The company should be

broken up into at least two separate companies, with Explorer being

stripped out of the OS and put into the hands of the Applications

group. Yes, Judge Jackson's ruling was a good remedy. If anything

less punitive occurs, Microsoft will continue laughing all the way

to the bank. What the Justice Department is trying to settle for is

an inadequate and ignorant solution.

Brad Richardson

Medford, Oregon

MTC-40

MTC-00000041

From: Patrick Williams

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 12:15pm

Subject: Monopoly settlement decision

Having read what was available about the settlement that has

been suggested for the monopoly lawsuit against Microsoft I feel

that this settlement is a highly inadequate solution and will prove

to be ineffectual in it's stated aims, namely forcing Microsoft into

a more level playing field with it's competitors and allowing

consumers a broader range of options in the software market. I can

only hope that the arrangement will be modified as a result of some

of the states and the E.U. continuing to press for further

restrictions and modifications to the Microsoft corporation's

predatory business practices.

Thanks,

Patrick Williams

MTC-41

MTC-00000042

From: Ken Wolfe

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 12:17pm

Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement

To Whomever This May Concern:

The settlement proposed by the Federal Goverment will not help

protect consumers. The agreement is impotent, and it is not in the

public's best interest. It contains nothing that will actually alter

Microsoft's predatory practices, or improve the economy in any way.

The only thing that will stop Microsoft from behaving the way it

does is a breakup, or some de-valuing of the Windows operating

system.

Best Regards,

Ken Wolfe

MTC-42

MTC-00000043

From: John Carter

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 12:17pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

The Justice Dep't caved in the Microsoft settlement. Microsoft

will continue its anticompetitive behavior until future abuses force

the matter to be addressed once again.

John Carter

Nashville, Tenn.

MTC-43

MTC-00000044

From: Bryan Fazekas

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 12:19pm

Subject: settlement is a joke

After years of effort and millions of dollars expended, it's

pretty clear that Bill Gates and Co finally figured out who to

bribe. This "settlement" is a travesty of justice. I

hope the remaining 9 states are able to push through a real penalty.

Bryan Fazekas

_winemaker8 1 @yahoo.com

_ http://home.nc.rr.com/winemaker81/

MTC-44

MTC-00000045

From: Jimmy Hilley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 12:26pm

Subject: Public Comment

This settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft is a total sham.

You will never get an ounce of respect from this consumer ever

again. Since when does anyone get to negotiate after being found

guilty? THE CONSUMER GOT SCREWED! Justice in America, what a joke!

MTC-45

MTC-00000046

From: Joe Gerkman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 12:29pm

Subject: comment re: proposed microsoft settlement

Dear Sirs/Madams:

Unfortunately, I would have to say as an IT professional with

over 11 years of experience in the industry, that the results you've

come up with really won't do anything to curb Microsoft's horrible

and bullying business tactics and equally will do nothing to help us

as consumers. They will continue to push their way through the

Technology industry and leave unsuspecting consumers, and other

software developers "in their wake". They care nothing

for the consumer (except as far as their own pocketbook is

concerned), and even less for other software developers, who

incidently typically produce software of a higher quality and more

stable, but who also typically get run-over' by Microsoft either

directly or indirectly (through their agreements with computer

vendors). As it is, if I want to buy a personal computer from Dell

or Gateway without Microsoft Windows on it and have something like

Linux on it, I can't ... as a consumer, that makes me quite angry.

And after a few minutes with the computer vendor on the phone, I

find out that Microsoft gets money for each and every system

regardless of whether or not Windows/Office is on the machine, and

that's why they can't ship it to me with Linux. That sort of

situation is RIDICULOUS!!! I can't even get a computer with Windows

2000 and Office 2000 anymore ... 1 must buy Windows XP ... and I

don't like it! Thanks for "helping" us out as consumers,

and in the IT/Computer industry (please note the sarcasm).

I was hopeful that you would've come up with an settlement which

could help avoid some of this, but unfortunately, it would appear

that Microsoft has yet again gotten their way, and others are left

to deal with the aftermath. If this was the result, you should've

given up the case years ago and not wasted our valuable tax dollars

on it.

Sincerely,

Joseph M. Gerkman

Seattle, WA

206-935-2800 (home)

MTC-46

MTC-00000047

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 12:29pm

Subject: Microsoft

You've let us down. We trusted you to act in the best interest

of the American people and you, instead, act in the best interests

of the criminals. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Ed Sawicki

MTC-47

MTC-00000048

From: Doug Lewis

To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj .gov'

Date: 11/16/01 12:31pm

Subject: Microsoft penalties

Thanks a lot for giving a convicted monopolist pretty much

everything they wanted after you already won the case. If the

Justice Department really thinks it's imposed penalties that will

stop Microsoft's monopolistic behavior, then it needs to hire some

people that are more in the know with the technology industry. If

the Justice Department wanted to protect Microsoft, since it's such

an "innovator", they should know better than to take

advice from the marketing department of the company they're

prosecuting. I'm very dissapointed at how poorly the Justice

Department has handled this affair. As a consumer, and an American,

I feel really cheated.

P.S. I am hoping that there was no political motivation behind

the handling of penalties. Whether or not the anti trust laws are an

appropriate blockade to Microsoft's activites is for a judge to

decide. Anybody working for the prosecution in this case who

deliberately chose to pursue weaker remedies because they felt

"no business should be hassled by the government" ought

to be fired for not doing their job.

MTC-48

MTC-00000049

From: William Clouse

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 12:35pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

The proposed settlement looks to me like nothing more than

window dressing. The

[[Page 23662]]

whole problem with Micorsoft is that the is no real alternative to

using their operating system. They have a true monolopy on the

operating system used by nearly all cionsumer PC's. The only

alternatives have extremely limited software availablilty. The only

solution I see to the problem is to force MS to make the Windows X86

code an open standard so other companies may begin making operating

systems that will be able to run software written for Windows. Until

that happens the entire computer industry, as well as the consumer,

will continue to be held hostage by Microsoft.

MTC-49

MTC-00000050

From: Brian H. Jensen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 12:36pm

Subject: Comment

Hello,

Wow, I guess you still can buy government officials. Just out of

curiosity how much did it cost Microsoft to buy you folks off?

Brian 'disgusted by the DOJ" Jensen

MTC-50

MTC-00000051

From: Helga Kocurek

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 4:18pm

Subject: Microsoft Deal

I am very disappointed in the DOJ, it was bought by big money

instead of pursuing the best for the consumer.

MTC-51

MTC-00000052

From: David Phan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 4:19pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Dear Sir or Madam,

This is hardly a slap on Micrasoft's hand. It will not prevent

Microsoft from illegally kill its competition by using its monopoly.

In fact, it will encourage them to do it even more, knowing that

they could get away with it.

I am extremely disappointed in the outcome of the case. It shows

once again the people with money are treated differently in the

court of law. We might as well take that blindfold off of the

Justice symbol.

Your fellow citizen.

MTC-52

MTC-00000053

From: Helga Kocurek

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 4:22pm

Subject: Bad Idea

How could you?

MTC-53

MTC-00000054

From: MoserRJ

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 4:30pm

Subject: Microsoft

This suit is not supported by 75-80% of computer users.

The entire suit is being pushed by Microsoft's competitors and the

State AGs where these competitors reside. The Judge should accept

the settlement and drop the remaining States suit. This would be a

boon to our present economy. Any lengthening of the trial will only

drag the Tech economy still lower. Let AOL, Novell, Sun, et al,

fight the war with their products and not in the Courts.

MoserRJ

MTC-54

MTC-00000055

From: C Pyrros

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 4:31pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Dear Justice Department,

I am deeply concerned about the settlement being proposed with

Microsoft in the anti-trust matter. I do not believe the current

settlement is sufficient to ensure a healthy, open, competitive

environment in the future. I have been working in the personal

computer industry since 1985, and observed Microsoft's ruthless

behavior first-hand.

In the late 80s and early 90s, there were several choices in

desktop operating systems (DOS, OS/2, Windows, Macintosh), several

choices in word processing software (WordStar, WordPerfect, Word),

several choices in Internet Browsers (Mosaic, Navigator), and so on.

As Microsoft gained market share, they unfairly used that influence

to eliminate competition. Since Microsoft has so many revenue

streams, they did, and still do, offer(ed) certain products at a

total loss, for the sole purpose of eliminating their competition.

There bullying tactics have sent chills through the entire IT

industry, and still exert a profound effect.

What happened to the other word processors? What happened to the

other desktop operating systems? What happened to the other Internet

browsers? In each case, Microsoft had the inferior product, yet

somehow prevailed: WordPerfect was the better word processor, OS/2

the better operating system, Navigator the better browser, Novell

the better file server; yet a combination of good marketing (quite

legal), behind-the-scenes bullying (illegal), and unfairly written

contracts (also illegal) gave Microsoft the unfair advantage.

When the free-market system operates correctly, price/

performance tends to drive the better and more economical products

to the top. This clearly did not happen anywhere that Microsoft was

involved. The Intemet-WWW browser market is a key example. The WWW

specification was specifically designed to be completely platform

independent: any server operating system, any client operating

system, and any browser software could be used, completely

transparent to the end user. Due to Microsoft's bullying, this is no

longer the case: Microsoft's products create web pages that only

function properly with Microsoft's browser. Due to Microsoft's

market share, and the dominance of the IE browser, it has now become

very difficult for users of other browsers and operating systems

(for example, Linux users) to complain to web site owners that the

Microsoft-ified web site won't function with their Linux-based web

browser. The (Linux, OS/2, Nextstep, etc) user then has no choice

but to use the Microsoft browser, on a Microsoft-supported operating

system, if they want to use the Micro soft-ified web site.

Microsoft's rejection of the de-facto Sun Java standard leads to

a new version of Microsoft's browser (Internet Explorer 6) that does

not support Java, further compounding compatibility problems in the

WWW space. Only a company as large as Microsoft can exert the weight

necessary to incapacitate and open standard, and they appear to be

succeeding.

I could also write pages on the billions of dollars in cost

increases that the corporate world, and end users, have suffered due

to incompetent Microsoft software. In thousands of cases, companies

and individuals were forced to use the Microsoft product, despite

its inferiority, due to unfair market practices. In the long run,

these companies and users suffered a tremendous economic impact

trying to use products that were not yet ready for public use.

As for the future, Microsoft is already behaving questionably in

regard to the upcoming Tablet PC market. Articles on this matter can

be found a www.wired.com that express the problem.

In order to ensure a competitive environment in the future I

would propose the following:

That Microsoft be separated into the following divisions:

Operating Systems (Windows 98, ME, XP, 2000, etc)

Internet Products (Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, etc)

Application Products (Office, Word, Excel, Access, etc)

Infrastructure Products (SQL Server, Mail, Outlook, etc)

I would also propose that Microsoft be forced to open portions

of the Microsoft operating systems specifications, so that other

application developers could enjoy that benefits that Microsoft

applications have had for over a decade. Further protections would

be necessary to prevent collusion between the different formerly-

Microsoft companies after the separation.

My knowledge of this problem is not unique by any means, but

please permit me if may to humbly express my background: I have been

working in the IT industry since 1985, consulting to small clients

as well as Fortune 500 customers, on issues including network

design, the Internet, security, infrastructure, servers, and

personal computers. I have been certified under respective programs

by IBM, Microsoft, and Novell. I appreciate your time and

consideration in this matter. If I can be of any assistance, please

do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely yours,

C Pyrros, CLSE, MCP 2000, MCSE 3.51, CNE 5.0, MCNE 5.0

POB 14175

Chicago IL 60614

773 645-7475

MTC-55

MTC-00000057

From: Ken Dunn

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 4:33pm

[[Page 23663]]

Subject: Settlement.

This settlement is still too much to impose on a private

enterprise. This whole suit never should have been filed. Microsoft

is not a monopoly. There are several alternatives including linux,

OS/2, Solaris for X86, Dr.DOS (yes, it does still exist despite

claims to the contrary by the prosecution), PC-DOS (I just

bought the 2000 version from IBM last month). This suit wrongfully

damaged the global economy to an extent that it may not recover for

5-8 years. As an independent software developer I (as well as

most others in my field) rely and depend on various operating system

features and functions to be available in a given version of an

operating system. Microsoft has provided these functions and

regularly upgrades them through service packs and Internet Browser

upgrades (this is an important example of code reuse where commonly

used routines are used by multiple applications and sometimes the OS

itself, a point not understood by the so-called experts that

testified in this kangaroo court proceeding). Almost all third party

applications that use tcp-ip networking rely on pieces of the IE

Browser and require a minimum version of that Browser in order to

function correctly. I have many customers who use Netscape as their

Browser of choice, but have realized performance and stability

improvements by keeping the JE Browser up to date. If IE had not

been "bundled' with the OS it would have cost most third party

developers so much as to make continued support impractical and

therefore truly reduce software competition and choice for

consumers. Where was the DOJ when SUN controlled the workstation

market so totally that even IBM didn't even try to compete? Where

was DOJ when SUN was gouging the market for 4-10 times what a

competitve product would have cost, especially when a huge number of

these workstations were being paid for by the taxpayers for use by

the government and government contractors? The only true justice

would be if Microsoft was declared not to be a monopoly and those

responsible for starting this whole antitrust action to be jailed

for crimes against the United States and crimes against the global

economy.

A very dissatisfied customer of the DOJ, which is a true

monopoly.

MTC-57

MTC-00000058

From: MikeAfromTX @aol.com@ inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 4:34pm

Subject: (no subject)

Gentlemen:

I have been using PC's since 1977 and since the debut of the MS

operating systems with the advent of the IBM PC MicroSoft has

consistently tried to force (and has almost succeeded) all other

operating systems out of business. They do this by incorporating

packages into the OS (currently varying versions of

"Windows")that are usually sold as stand-alone, by using

their marketing power to force the authors of most software to write

only for MS-based systems, and by forcing PC dealers to put only

their (MS) products on PC's if they wish to continue doing business

with MS. restriciting any changes to the product the dealers and/or

customers might wish.

The MS products are over-hyped and have a history of failing

when released, the most notable example being "Windows

95", which was usually not installable when first released,

and required special downloads adding to the cost of the product.

Additionally, they never really complete one product and eliminate

the bugs in it, prefering instead to leave users with junk while

they go on to the "new, improved" next edition of the

product, always at increasing cost.

The oft-stated resolution is to by another product if you do not

like "Windows"; what product would that be that runs the

software that is so prevalent in the industry? Linux is mostly a

server platform and Unix as so unfriendly to users so is restricted

to scientists and engineers. The only other package would be the

Apple Operating System, and that requires a specific computer and

package that at a minimum is twice as expensive as a standard PC

with software.

The roll-over by the Republican party to the big campaign

contributor Bill Gates and MS is no solution at all; merely a wink,

a nod and a "Gee, you really should be more careful!"

kind of warning. At the very least MS should be forced to sell only

a striped down version of its OS, minus any enhancement that is

currently being sold as stand-alone; better yet would be to break

the company into two independant segments, with Bill Gates

prohibited from any dealings/ownership/stock in one of them.

If this is not possible then the OS should be treated as a

monopoly in the interest of the nation and tightly controlled as

public utilities used to be before greed got the better of this

nation.

I realize the government will probably bury this response, but

it sure would be nice if for once it acted for the good of the

people instead of a corporation or political party; it would also be

nice if the judge in the case had a chance to see it before it is

shredded. In any case, I am sure you will not mind if I forward a

copy to various industry publications.

Thank you for your time.

Mike Adams

1302 Arcadia Avenue

Austin TX 78757

MTC-58

MTC-00000059

From: Ralph Ewig

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 4:36pm

Subject: comments on proposed settlement

Dear DOJ officer,

I am writing to express my concerns and severe dissatisfaction

regarding the proposed settlement in the anti-trust case brought

against Microsoft. The settlement has practically no punitive

measures for past misconduct, or remedies to repair damage caused to

consumers because of past microsoft misconduct. It is ridiculous

that MS is to keep all the benefits of the actions it took, even

though they have been legally identified as conflicting with

existing laws. If I were to rob a bank, would I get to keep the

money, with the judge telling me "don't do that again",

and assigning my best pal to make sure I follow that advise??

The proposed oversight committee to enforce prevention of future

transgressions is a farce. Being on MS payroll, and with MS having

significant influence on who will be part of the committee, I have

zero confidence in the comittee's effectiveness or motivations.

MS practice of pushing its products based on the companies

superior capabilities in the manipulation of intellectual property

laws, rather than technical innovation or economic value, has

continously hampered innovation, harmed consumers, and suppressed

any kind of competition from taking hold. The remedies *must*

include full, and unconditional, disclosure of all windows API's to

the general public, and only a breakup of the company that separates

the OS division from the application division will be able to

enforce this behaviour (out of economic neccessity if the OS part of

the company intends to stay in business).

Especially with recent events in mind, this country cannot

afford to project the appearance that the DOJ is nothing more than a

pawn of corporate america, where Lady Justice is anything but blind

to enough political clout or economic influence.

Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully,

Ralph Ewig

MTC-59

MTC-00000060

From: Ned Wolpert

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 4:36pm

Subject: Comments about the antitrust case against Microsoft

Folks_

I saw that one could mail here comments about the antitrust

settlement. Here are mine. I'm both a consumer of electronic goods,

and a programmer.

The anti-trust settlement that was presented to the judge did

not go far enough. Microsoft needs not just a watchdog around them,

they need clear rules (without exceptions or time limits) to limit

their ability to for anti-competitive marketing. This includes:

_Allow computer mfg the ability to put multiple OS on the

computers they make, with NO penatilites from MS. (Ever)

_Allow computer mfg to customize a MS-Windows installed PC any

way they want, with NO penalties from MS. (Ever)

These are the two most important items that Microsoft should

never challenge. The reason is simple: Microsoft only wants

Microsoft tools on their systems. Computer mfg are more likely to

listen to the buying public on what they want. MS isn't. So, if a

computer mfg wants to put a dual-boot Windows/Linux with Opera for

the web browser together, MS should not be able to dictate

otherwise. No financial penalties should be levied by MS to the

computer mfg.

Far too many times has MS abused its position against other

companies. (Stacker is one case that pops to mind, but I'm sure you

folks have your list) As a developer, I'm tired of MS bullying

people around their platform. As a consumer, I'm tired of not having

choice

[[Page 23664]]

in the market. Regardless of the lies that MS says, they do not

innovate. They do provide a service, but its not innovation. They

take other ideas and re-work them, extending them with proprietary

API's so no one else can hook into their service. (Such as Kerbose

for security. They got all the benefits from the free software, but

them made enough (1) small changes so that other kerbose systems

were incompatible with their NT servers.) They did that with IMAP

(MAPI), SMTP, SNMP, etc. They tried to do that with Java. (C#

was the result of failing at taking over Java) They have caused much

in the software world to not progress. Yet they continue to market

their innovative ability.

DOJ, please, you've got to help. MS abuses their position

constantly. The settlement needs to be on the side of the consumer,

one that can react quickly to when MS messes up. Help the other

companies in being able to deploy their software, rather than having

MS have a lock on the major computer mfgs.

Thank you.

Virtually,

Ned Wolpert

[email protected]

MTC-60

MTC-00000061

From: Ted McLaughlin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 4:41pm

Subject: Concerns regarding Microsoft settlement

I think that the currently proposed settlement is pathetically

weak. I think the this administration is caving in to Microsoft in a

desperate hope that it will somehow get the economy going again.

They are sacrificing justice and long term security for all in the

computer industry (except those who work for Microsoft) in hopes

that somehow this will get the economy back on it's feet. Microsoft

has a long history of violating every agreement that they have made,

not just with the DOJ but with computer manufacturers and

competitors in the software development arena. Many an extinct

company has rued the day that they entered into an agreement with

Microsoft only to have the company come out later with either it's

own version of the software, or with it bundled into the operating

system.

I think that the quote from Bill Gates says it best:

(Microsoft's chairman, Bill Gates, on Thursday defended the

settlement as tough but one that "we're really pleased to

have.") [pulled from CNN's website]. Microsoft wants this

settlement so bad it isn't funny. They will be classifying

everything as anti-piracy or security to keep it private, and then

when they absolutely can't fight it any longer, they will drag their

feet in disclosing the information so that it is obsolete by the

time it is released. Microsoft's history in destroying it's

competitors is well know. I know of Java developers now who are

looking to transition to Microsoft's new development program for the

sole reason that Microsoft has dropped Java. They think that is the

Kiss of Death for Sun and that there is no reason now to keep

working on Java. This is but one example of how this industry is

cowering in fear of Microsoft and how every company dreads the day

that Microsoft comes out with a product that competes with their

own.

The current agreement will do nothing to save Sun, nor will it

help save any of the other companies who are in a losing battle with

Microsoft. I also think that it is sad that the government is

completely ignoring Microsoft's handling of it's Passport product.

That should have been one of the things built into this agreement is

something to place constraints on Microsoft's ownership of a great

deal of private information. Windows XP was the biggest blow

personal privacy on the internet since Microsoft got it's first

T-l line to the internet. Another sad development is the state

of the server market. Microsoft has already won the desktop war and

is using that monopoly to kill off any competition that it has on

the server side of things. Novell, Sun, and others are barely

holding on due to the license agreements that Microsoft is putting

in place to guarantee that if you use Windows and Office on the

desktop, that you will use Windows as your server as well. Too much

critical information is being placed on these servers to trust

Microsofts horrendous track record when it comes to security,

quality, and new licensing agreements to trust them with a monopoly

of the server market as well.

It is kind of funny, but also kind of scary, when any computer

magazine quotes someone in the computer industry who has anything

bad to say about Microsoft how they always want to be anonymous.

When a network administrator at a utility company says he wants to

be anonymous for fear of getting Microsoft upset that says a great

deal about how out of control that company is. Many of us Network

Administrators were cheering for the DOJ when this trial started. We

had hoped that the sanctions would be severe enough to keep at least

some of us from having to become Network Administrators on Windows

XP networks. None of us want to work on Microsoft networks because

they are flat out inferior to the competitions products, however we

are all smart enough to read the writing on the wall and realize

that Microsoft will soon own this market as well and we will have no

choice but to either work on XP servers, or get into a new career

field. Now we are all shaking our heads and are sorry that we got

our hopes up. That is why I am so upset about how poorly the

government has handled this settlement.

If you need to reach me for more comments feel free.

Theodore McLaughlin

Network and Email Administrator for 13 years.

7212 Dupont Ave N

Brooklyn Center, MN 55430

[email protected]_work

[email protected]_home

MTC-61

MTC-00000062

From: Mike Haight

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 4:42pm

Subject: Antitrust settlement.

To whom this may concern at the ever changing U. S. Department

of Justice,

I am disappointed with the outcome of this trial. It solves

nothing. Microsoft will go about doing business in the same manner

that they always have. Throw little innovative companies out of

their way by including their own version with the operating system.

Their version, when first introduced is always a watered down, less

capable version. But, most people are lazy, they do not want to

down-load and install. However, I'm not. I want choice. I want the

best program out there. This entire thing has soured me on computers

and also this system that is commonly called justice'. Here you have

a clear monopoly, declared this by two levels of the federal courts,

with a wrist slap. Do any of you actually think they will abide by

these latest remedies when they have ignored them before? Had they

been 'taken to task' then, we would still have multiple

browsers to choose from. I have read the "Proposed Final

Judgment" in its entirety. For every remedy, there is a fine

print loophole that Microsoft can use to do nothing. This

"Proposed Final Judgment" is a travesty.

Where do these remedies address to problem of Microsoft forcing

us to buy a version of their operating system when we purchase a

computer? When I purchase a computer, I am buying hardware. I will

choose what operating system meets my needs best. I do not want it

forced on me. Do you people actually think that Microsoft Windows is

the best that the human species is capable of? If not, how can this

better one even have the slightest chance of 'getting its head

above water for air' with a system of forced purchase of the

other guys product in place. And now, what about media players and

image processors? These two things have been bundled with the latest

Microsoft operating system et.al.'. How many more little companies,

you know the ones that actually take the risk

in_first_developing this software, are going to die

off because 'Johnny come lately' Microsoft is now

bundling lesser copies of their work with an operating system'.

Microsoft is only using these people as developers and marketing so

later they can leverage them right out of existence by bundling to

an 'operating system' declared as an monopoly.

I know the computer industry has fallen upon hard times, but

this does not change the law. Microsoft was in violation of the

Sherman antitrust act. From where I sit, you have done nothing to

stop them. You will not even slow them down.

Regards,

Michael Haight (903) 868-7342 [email protected]

CC: Michael Haight at airmail.net

MTC-62

MTC-00000063

From: bray

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 1:32pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

The proposed settlement below is unacceptable as a solution to

past monopolistic practices by Microsoft. "Not long after the

DOJ settlement, Microsoft announced it had agreed to another

settlement regarding a separate class-action suit brought against

the company by numerous parties that alleged overpricing of

[[Page 23665]]

Microsoft products. The settlement forces Microsoft to donate

software, hardware, and services to America's poorest schools.

This type of settlement would simply introduce Microsoft to a

market where they could further extend their monopoly. A better

solution would be for Microsoft to pay a specific amount of money to

each of these poor school districts to be used for non-microsoft

products only, such as computer hardware. Then a company such as

RedHat or Apple could donate software for these systems or part of

the Microsoft fine could be used to purchase this software.

Allowing Microsoft or any company to donate their own product as

part of a fine or punishment is akin to the drug dealer giving away

the first few highs to get his clients hooked!!

MTC-63

MTC-00000064

From: Mark A Siedlecki

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 4:44pm

Subject: Microsoft

Dear Sirs/Madam,

It is beyond my imagination that you decided not to break-up the

worst monopoly in the history of our country. History has shown us

monopolies only stifle innovation. Microsoft is no different! This

was not done for the good of the American citizen, but must have

been done to assist Big Business, once again.

Shame on you'

Sincerely yours,

Mark A. Siedlecki

President

InsideWorld Corporation

The Forum 1, 8601 Six Forks Road, Suite 400

Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 USA

Telephone: +1-919 866-1200

Facsimile: +1-9 19 866-1210

email [email protected]

Check out our company websites

www.InsideWorld.com

Free Email News, from around the World, on a Country specific basis

www.InsideCountries.com Country Directory Site on a Country

specific basis

www.InsideTravel.com Discount Travel Site

www.InsideDirect.com Travelers Health Insurance Service

www.InsideWeather.com Worldwide Weather Service

www.InsideGalaxy.com Free Community Website

www.InsideGreetings.com P-Greeting Card Service on a

Country specific basis

This electronic message contains information from the

Administrative department at InsideWorld Corporation, is intended

only for the use of the addressee, and may contain information,

which is PRIVILEGED or CONFIDENTIAL material. If you are not the

intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination

of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received

this communication in error, please erase all copies of the message

and its attachments and notify us immediately. Thank you.

Telephone +1-919 866-1200 Facsimile +1-919

866-1210

Email [email protected]

MTC-64

MTC-00000065

From: Rogers (038)

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 4:47pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am disappointed by the terms of the Department's proposed

settlement with Microsoft, which I believe to be excessively lenient

to Microsoft and not in the best interests of the public. The

settlement does too little to restore competition to an industry

dominated and abused by Microsoft's exploitation of its monopoly in

operating-system software. Under the settlement Microsoft can

continue to use its inside access to its operating-system technology

and its monopoly market power to suppress competition by other

companies.

During the last presidential election it was reported that

Microsoft and its employees made substantial financial contributions

to the Republican presidential campaign. It was then speculated by

the press that Microsoft believed that by doing so it would receive

lenient treatment from the Department of Justice if George Bush won

the presidency.

It now appears that the money donated by Microsoft and its

employees to the Republican Party was money well spent. While the

donations are not likely to be provable criminal bribery, the

donations certainly show that money can buy (the Department of)

"Justice."

Ronald L. Miller

MTC-65

MTC-00000066

From: Charles South

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 4:53 pm

Subject: Opinion on the US vs Microsoft Settlement

[Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It

has been converted to attachment.]

I understand you are seeking feedback on the proposed Dept of

Justice settlement with Microsoft at this address. I don't know what

purpose that could have at this late date, but since you asked...

I believe the Department of Justice has made a mistake in

settling this case. The points of law were clear_ Microsoft

misused its monopoly position in the industry to illegally stifle

competition and attempt to control the market. Further, they did

this over a period of years in a repetitive way in spite of a

previous court judgement that went against them for doing this very

thing. Their strategy has been clear from the beginning ... they

regard themselves as the controlling force in the market and will

ruthlessly suppress or drive out of business anyone they choose in

order to achieve their ends of continuous growth. Any market they

focus on tends to suffer as competition withdraws in the face of the

onslaught.

Further, the consumer is hurt by this tactic as competition

(which controls prices in a free market) withers. Innovation is

stifled because no true competitor is allowed to exist once

Microsoft targets a market. The consumer is presented with an

increasingly Microsoft-only solution when it comes to buying or

configuring a personal computer. This is not a good thing.

The Department of Justice had Microsoft cornered, finally, after

years of pursuit and the expenditure of large sums of money. The

evidence had been gathered, legal prosecution had been pursued in

the courts, and Microsoft weighed as guilty on multiple counts ...

senous violations all. The judgements were upheld at each level of

appeal. The Government had won. I was stunned when I heard that the

decision had been made to drop the attempt to split Microsoft into

two parts and instead drop back to a light slap on the wrist with a

few minor economic sanctions and controls.

I believe this_Microsoft absolutely must be separated into

two companies. It is the only solution that will remove the threat

from the computer world we now have. I have no problem with

Microsoft as a company that creates and sells operating systems. I

also have no difficulty with Microsoft as a company that sells the

dominant desktop productivity products in the world. But the

coalition of the two is a poison trap for the American

economy_because Microsoft uses their productivity products as

the leverage to keep their customers in line and away from the

competition in the operating system arena. Why doesn't Microsoft

Office exist on the Linux desktop systems? It's because Microsoft

knows it would undermine their sales of operating systems to big

companies, some of whom would love to move off of Windows. So they

carefully steer clear of offering Office on Linux and retain a

stranglehold on desktop systems.

I am not a Linux fan, but I absolutely want such products to

flourish in the United States or else we will fail to make the

progress we need to in the computer world, or worse_other

nations will take the lead we once firmly had in this industry and

leave us behind with our doddering Windows systems as they move on

to better and more efficient systems. Microsoft must not be allowed

to be the single innovator left in this country because, like all

large companies, they are neither agile enough nor creative enough

once they reach that size to retain those traits. I am also not a

Microsoft hater. I do in fact love Excel, and I can tolerate Windows

though it is not my favorite operating system. Visual Basic is a

good product. Powerpoint is adequate, and though I don't

particularly care for Word, I will grant that it works well enough

for those that can master it. What I don't like is the fact that

most of the products Microsoft makes are items constructed in such a

way as to sell more and more of them ... and worse, they are

constantly entertwined in such a way that you have to get all of

them whether you want them or not. Microsoft candidly admits that

their software licensing mechanisms are changing recently solely so

they can extract more money from their customers, and not because

there is any impression of value received for that money. Microsoft

has lost

[[Page 23666]]

their way in that regard, and in a free market they would be avoided

by some, and fall to a 2nd or 3rd choice by others. But in today's

computer world you have no choice_you have to go with

Microsoft because of their monopoly position.

I do not believe any of the settlement clauses which have been

discussed as the fallback position of the US Government will have

any effect. Microsoft has been down that road before and been shown

to ignore such constraints when they are imposed. I do not believe

it will be any different this time. They will bide their time, stay

below the radar for a couple of years and then quietly continue

their march to overwhelm anyone who seems to be a competitor. Having

spent this effort uselessly twice already, I don't see the

Government trying once again in 2006 to resurrect this dead horse,

and at that point Microsoft will have their full victory and walk

away laughing.

Only by having diversity and competition in the US computer

industry can we hope to stay in our leadership role in this rapidly

changing and evolving world. It is good to have multiple sources for

innovation, and it is good to keep the marketeers out of the

leadership role in such fast-moving industries. This will not happen

with an intact Microsoft. You had the solution; you had them where

you wanted them; and you had right on your side. You stayed your

hand for the wrong reasons_which I believe turned out to be

political expediency because of the new administration, and changed

priorities in the Department of Justice. But in doing this political

turnabout you betrayed the American people, whose fate was entrusted

to you by our Constitution. The legal system was the only lever

which could have made a difference and changed the course of the

future. I sincerely regret that you failed to have the courage and

the foresight not to see how urgent and how critical your role was.

My dwindling hope lies with the few States that appear willing

to continue to push this case, but the chance of their achieving

anything other than monetary concessions is impossibly remote. Only

the Government could have taken the admittedly drastic step of

dividing Microsoft in two. That option is now over, for all

practical purposes. I have watched the computer industry grow from

the time I was a college student in the 60's and first fell in love

with computers. I watched IBM's excesses in the 60's and 70's as

their arrogance drove all before them, similar to Microsoft, and I

watched as they later lost their stranglehold on this industry in

the 80's as new technologies overcame their ability to adapt. And I

watched Digital Equipment Company as they soared to the top of the

industry in the 80's, losing their way as they failed to understand

the critical importance of personal computers. And I saw the rise of

Microsoft during the 80's and 90's, leading to the same type of

arrogance IBM used to show 4 decades ago. The difference is

this_Microsoft has a stranglehold not only on American

businesses but also on the American consumer. Their fingers reach

deep into all levels of the world economy for individuals and

companies and governments. IBM never had that reach. Microsoft is so

entrenched in the way computing is done that inertia alone will keep

them there for at least a decade even if they stumble badly in their

direction. That is "forever" in the computer world,

where 5 years is a generation. It is critical that their decisions

be made in the face of competition, and not by a monopoly posture in

an industry they believe they own. Good luck with whatever you will

do with this issue. I am disappointed and disillusioned that the

Government chose to yield the winning hand as they did, and seems

not to understand what they have done or what they have lost. I hope

my point of view is more gloomy than necessary, and that events will

work out for the best for America. However, I have built my career

on being right about technical trends. If I had to bet on someone,

I'd bet on me ... not on you.

Charles South

Chief Architect, Information Technology

HRL Laboratories

Malibu CA

MTC-66

MTC-00000067

From: Drew Wallen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 4:55pm

Subject: Proposed settlement is inadequate

I am an independant computer consultant and advanced PC user. I

have been following the Microsoft antitrust case for years and have

been hoping for a decisive result which will protect me and my

clients from MS's well-known predatory business practices and

attitudes.

The least I was hoping for was a breakup of the monopoly into 3

companies: Operating Systems; Applications; and Games. With perhaps

another company for internet and/or wireless functions. The joke is

that in the short run Gates et al would scream about the breakup,

but it would improve the competitive environment. In the long run,

the rich would get even richer, as has happened with the ATT breakup

where people who held their "baby bells" would have done

wonderfully.

I know you will get millions of messages, pro and con, so I

won't run on. However you decide, I have vowed to wean my clients

away from MS products and get them into Linux and Apple (of course,

MS owns a huge stake in Apple as well).

Microsoft free by 2003!!!

I want to run them out of business altogether.

Drew Wallen

St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands

MTC-67

MTC-00000068

From: West Tennessee Print

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 5:02pm

Subject: Ruling opinion

First, I am not a microsoft basher they have done some good and some

very bad things to the computer industry. I, as many others have to

use Microsoft's products. Microsoft insists that they integrate

things into Windows to help the user. I believe that they integrate

to help Windows maintain its dominance. The perfect example is what

they have done with their new version of Internet explorer. How does

not offering Java or QuickTime support Help users? It doesn't it

FORCES people to use Windows Media player and Active x.

So, the effect of that is, if you want people to have access to

your web page you MUST use microsoft programming tools. Does this

help Business? What about Microsoft's New version of MSN blocking

all but internet Explorer users, does this help users?

The thing that the Justice Department should be worried about is

.NET and Passport.

Here's why:

1. you must use windows because their are few real competitors

that are brave enough to take microsoft head on for the desktop

computer market

2. people use Internet Explorer because it is integrated into

windows

3. when using windows & internet explorer the computer urges

people to setup a passport account and they finally give in

4. millions of peoples personal and credit information is now

sitting on Microsoft's servers

5. by holding such valuable information microsoft has painted a

giant bulls eye on its self for hackers to try and hit

6. Microsoft's history with computer security is dismal, how times a

month are they issuing patches to fix security holes in Microsoft's

IIS which runs the servers containing peoples information

7. the bottom line is that millions of peoples lives can be harmed

by Microsoft's software and practices if microsoft is not limited in

some way What is Antitrust Law For? PROTECTING & HELPING PEOPLE!

How does it control microsoft for them to make its windows code

available to developers so they can build better programs for the

monopoly? It actually helps microsoft because they get more stable

programs to run on windows and it dose not address the problem of

WHY Windows is running on over 97% of computers WORLD WIDE.

It may not matter but its my opinion.

AM

MTC-68

MTC-00000069

From: Jamie McGloin-King

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 5:04pm

Subject: The current proposed settlement does not protect me from

Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly power.

The Justice Department has failed me, my community, and the

business I work for.

This settlement is barely a slap on the wrist. How does this

punish Microsoft in a manner commensurate with their crimes against

the businesses and the citizens of America?

Microsoft must be forced to sell a product without a built-in

browser or any of their other built-in, insidious, low-quality

products. Microsoft must be prevented from bullying PC

manufacturers. Microsoft must be humbled, punished, and have its

power reduced.

Additionally, Microsoft should pay huge fines for its crimes.

Where is that in the settlement?

[[Page 23667]]

Now, Microsoft is trying to bribe the nine states that,

correctly, don't agree that your settlement is fair or effective.

Microsoft is offering them money in exchange for signing up to your

settlement. This stinks, if you'll pardon my language. It stinks of

back-room deals and a Justice Department that would rather be

incarcerating minorities than safeguarding the right to a free and

fair market. Where are the conservatives? It seems like the Justice

Department is being run by folks with some radical ideas about why

they should not enforce the laws of this nation and the rulings of

its judges. That, in my opinion, is not justice. Please change your

stance and craft a more punitive settlement. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Jamie McGloin-King

Director of Partner Support

www.prosperpoint.com

(831) 429-1231 x102

MTC-69

MTC-00000070

From: Don Steiny

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 5:05pm

Subject: I am against the settlement

Renate Hesse

Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division

U.S. Department of Justice

I am disturbed that the Department of Justice is unwilling to

enforce the antitrust laws. It seems that the DOJ simply does not

understand the technical issues involved or the degree that

Microsoft is damaging the US economy. I would be happy to spend time

describing this to you. I teach operating system theory at

University of California and San Jose State University. The

settlement is wrong.

-Don

MTC-70

MTC-00000071

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 5:13pm

Subject: Microsoft antitrust settlement

Dear sirs:

I respectfully would like to tell you that the settlement you

have arranged with Microsoft IS BAD!

"Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates on Thursday defended the

settlement as tough but one that "we're really pleased to

have." Nine other states led by California, Iowa and

Connecticut rejected it and will ask U.S. District Judge Colleen

Kollar-Kotelly to impose tougher penalties during hearings next

year."

This statement from today's AP news say it all. Can the DOJ

honestly say the settlement is one that "we're really pleased

to have."? I don't think so. You just think that it is all you

can get without taking it through the courts, where you know you

would end up getting much more. Then why is Bill Gates saying it?

"The department promised in its 1995 settlement that it

would "end Microsoft's unlawful practices that restrain trade

and perpetuate its monopoly power." Yet as Sporkin rejected

it, he complained that, "simply telling a defendant to go

forth and sin no more does little or nothing to address the unfair

advantage it has already gained."

This statement from the AP also sums it up. Microsoft is NOT

repentant. They have been screwing small companies since before 1995

and still continue to do so. They have no interest in competition

for the public good and will continue any other noncompetitive way

to wield their monopoly to gain market share in any area possible.

All the current settlement does is tell them to go and sin no more.

If they had actually been penalized the first time, they might not

have sinned again ... and again ... and again. By not penalizing

them now, you are telling them that they can do anything they want,

knowing that the worst that will happen is that they won't be

allowed to do it anymore.

How can you think about all the companies that Microsoft has

forced under by including similar software in Windows at "no

extra cost", and say that this settlement is fair and that

Microsoft should not be punished. Don't fool yourselves, this

settlement is only a slap on the wrist to Microsoft and DOES NOT

PUNISH THEM AT ALL.

The only way to punish Microsoft and to be sure that they cannot

do this again is to break them into two companies: Operating System

and Application Software. They used their OS monopoly to create

software against which no other company could compete, e.g., MS

Office, Internet Explorer, Disk Scan, Disk Defragmenter, etc...

This settlement is only in the best interests of Microsoft, not

the public, and should not be pursued.

Andrew L. Miller

PC Solutions

MTC-71

MTC-00000072

From: Harry Reisenleiter

To: 'Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj .gov'

Date: 11/16/01 5:16pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I do not agree with the current settlement in this case.

Microsoft is an abusive monopoly whose anticompetitive behavior has

been ongoing, consistent, and damaging to consumers and to the

market place.

History is littered with products that Microsoft Microsoft

continues to bundle products for no other reason than to destroy

competing products. And they leverage their dominance of the desktop

to the fullest.

They continue to cite "consumer demand" for their

bundling actions, but I defy you to find one legitimate study of

consumers that would indicate a requirement, or even desire for

Microsoft's actions. Certainly I doubt seriously that there would be

justification for many of the "features" in the

Corporate environment.

I have been in the computer business for over 20 years and have

dealt with all the largest computer companies. None have exhibited

the disrespect for security, stability, or features that Microsoft

has demonstrated_for years. None have so clearly leveraged

their product with the destruction of competition as the aim. None

have so distorted the English Language ("innovation"

comes to mind), either.

Please do not fold on the issues. Microsoft earned strict,

severe and lasting punishment for their actions. They are a

monopoly; they are anti-competitive; and they show absolutely no

signs of changing.

Thank you,

Harry Reisenleiter

[email protected]

[email protected]

MTC-72

MTC-00000073

From: Madden, Ken

To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj .gov'

Date: 11/16/01 5:23pm

Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Solutions

Greetings.

I just wanted to write to say that I agree with the current US

GovernmentlDOJ solution-set to the Microsoft Antitrust allegations.

As a Network Administrator in a mid-sized company (US-owned), I

feel that it is Microsoft's right to innovate their product with the

addition of browsers and add-ons and like programs_built into

the OS. Even Microsoft's competitors wish to be able to innovate

their products without government intervention.

Each of the companies that instigated the DOJ investigation and

suit had the opportunity and the will in the past to be

monopolies_Novell was a virtual monopoly in the NOS market,

Netscape was a Monopoly in the browser market. Each lost market

share due to poor market positioning_Novell insisted that it

be deployed and maintained by expensive Novell_trained

engineers, Netscape was too unstable to be a pleasing browser

experience. The computing consumer has benefited immensely from the

easy availability of Microsoft networking and Internet Explorer

stability.

The question remains, however; Was Microsoft engaged in

practices that were 'beyond the pale' in their agreements with

other companies? That answer is clearly 'Yes' and therefore

sanctions should clearly be brought against Microsoft for their

behavior in this regard. However, splitting up the company and a

forced-reveal of the crown jewels of their business_their

source code_is also clearly beyond the mandate of proper

sanctions for these actions.

Computing in the world has clearly benefited by having a world

software leader, who is at the least benevolent, and at most

paranoid. Sometimes leaders need to be brought back into line, but

they don't necessarily need to be deposed.

Ken Madden

Network Administrator

VECO Canada (Engineering) Ltd

MTC-73

MTC-00000074

From: Joel Inguisrud

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 5:24pm

Subject: Microsoft punishment

Dear DOJ,

Your settlement with Microsoft does not punish Microsoft in any

meaningful way. Regardless of the enforceability of

"behavioral changes" spelled out in the settlement, the

fact remains that Microsoft is getting off scot-free for decades of

criminal

[[Page 23668]]

behavior. Your settlement lets Microsoft executives behave in public

as if they never did anything wrong. Your settlement is an insult to

the hundreds of thousands of hard-working, creative computer

industry workers who's lives have been and continue to be diminished

by Microsoft's bullying.

Please punish Microsoft as severely as they have illegally

punished everyone who has tried to compete with them for the past

twenty years_by levying billions of dollars in fines (to be

distributed to university and national laboratory computer science

research and development departments) and banning all public

advertising and marketing of Microsoft products for ten years.

This settlement is ten years late for the countless operating

system, word processor, spreadsheet, presentation, email, media

player, 3D API, programming tool, and web browser software

developers out there, but if you instituted real punishment

sufficient to cause Bill Gates and Steve Balimer to be forced to

resign, at least the playing field would be level for the few of us

who are left standing.

Sincerely,

Joel Ingulsrud

[email protected]

+1(916) 944-8434

MTC-74

MTC-00000075

From: Abdul Jabbar

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 5:32pm

Subject: Pepsi vs Coke

Please, don't forget the lame argument of Mr. Gates that it

would be unfair to ask Pepsi to ship a pack of Coke with every pack

of Pepsi. This argument is wrong because Pepsi (Microsoft) has the

control (monopoly) over the truck (Windows) that takes Pepsi and

Coke to the store. If the truck (Windows) would not carry Coke,

consumers would have no way of getting it.

http://inbox.excite.com

MTC-75

MTC-00000076

From: Don Marsh

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 5:37pm

Subject: MS Settlement

Dear Sirs,

I do not agree with the terms of your settlement with Microsoft.

This company entered into an agreement with Justice in 1995 and

immediately broke it. This has caused great expense to the

taxpayers.

Microsoft does not innovate and develop new ideas in application

software. They simply steal their ideas from other software

developers and add it to their operating systems and force OEM's to

exclude the competing software.

Microsoft will, in my opinion, find a way around the limiations

in your agreement with them and continue business as usual. In the

future how many software developers will want to spend a lot of time

and money to develop new software technology only to have Microsoft

steal their ideas and put them out of business?

Because of their tactics, we will never know what the PC

computing experience might have been. Microsoft writes unreliable

and insecure software, but because of their monopoly, hard-working,

more talented software developers were railroaded right out of the

business and never had a chance. Just imagine if we had an operating

system that didn't crash every time you turned around. We will never

know now and that is sad.

Sincerely,

Donald Marsh

MTC-76

MTC-00000077

From:

To:

Date:

Subject: arrangement.

mike potter

Microsoft ATR

11/16/01 5:37pm

this proposed settlement is clearly not a judicial settlement

but a political backroom this proposed settlement is clearly not a

judicial settlement but a political backroom arrangement. I see

nothing in it that stops ms from continuing to exercise its

monopolistic powers. There is nothing in it that penalizes ms for

what it has done and finally there is nothing in it for the

consumer. At the very least you could have made ms fix its previous

OS before they try to lock down the next 10 years by forcing people

to buy XP. to put it bluntly you have ignored your duties to the

point that if you didn't have the "big stick" protection

you would be legally on the stick for your performance i.e you took

their money but you didn't protect the people

Mike Potter

Hamilton, Canada

MTC-77

MTC-00000078

From: Meir Levi

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 5:40pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlemnt_Consumer input.

Ranet Hesse

Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division

US Department of Justice

601 D. Street NW Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20530

This is in response to Justice Department solicitation for input

to the settlement with MS.

MS is a company of which it was found GUILTY of violating the

federal law. Courts have already determined that Windows OS is a

monopoly. Now you are talking about Settlement?, and defending the

decision to so?. Please, show me where else the Federal Government

"settled with law breakers about their punishment. MS Broke

the law now it has to be convicted and pay the price. Period.

Windows OS have reached this level of market share through

outright illegal, and unfair business practices. For past two

decades, MS ripped us, the consumers of our hard earned money, and

still continues to do so. In my view, DOJ is completely on the wrong

track in dealing with MS.

Having "three representatives watch MS business

practices" is like having your dog to guard the meat. I do not

wish to see my tax dollars are wasted on bogus government oversight

on a company which its executives stick their thump up everybody's

nose.

Any fair settlement which serves consumers interest, should

allow competition in the marketplace for the OS.. Therefore, Windows

entire code MUST be accessible to other competitors to such a degree

where they can CLONE it to run all existing windows based

application and middleware programs, un-impeded by bogus copy right

laws. Where, these competitors can also bundle any middleware S/W

with their Operating Systems, just as much as MS does today. Had IBM

had such an access to these codes in the past, their 0S2 Operating

System would have been today just as successful as Windows. Please,

don't believe to MS and their supporters FUD (Fear Uncertainties,

Doubt) about the "nightmare" and "confusion"

from which it may result in multiple OS's. In every industry, all

competitors form a committees to set interface standard.

It is true with the lightbulb, automobile tires, and million and

millions of other products. There is no reason where competitors in

the OS as well can't do the same.

I object to the provision of this settlement with Microsoft.

Thanks

Meir Levi

13126 Anza Drive

MTC-78

MTC-00000079

From: Chuck Dresback

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 5:41pm

Subject: COMMENTS

I have been building PC's for several years and I own a

Macintosh computer

Microsoft has been selling defective operating system software

to the public for at least eight years. Their systems consistently

freeze and crash. When the public gets fed up they come out with a

new system with more defects than the last and they charge lots of

money for it. Their marketing department blames their software

problems on third party software which is false.

They get away with it because they have on competition in the OS

arena and the settlement does nothing to address this key point.

Macintosh systems and LInux, which are superior systems to Windows,

don't crash but they have effectively eliminated those platforms by

coercing the third party software publishers into not writing for

it. The most popular flight simulator program, Microsoft Flight

Simulator, isn't published for any platform other than Windows. BTW,

it crashes for no reason at the worst time.

There new OS. Windows XP, is set up to steal information off the

user's hard drive for their use.

These guys are crooks and because of the money they have paid to

buy off the Congressmen it will be impossible to stop their

relentless pursuit to control not only the computer field but also

almost every product we will be using in the future, from air

conditioners to vcr's and any other electronic device.

In 13 years that I have owned Macintosh's, I reformatted the

hard drive once. In 2000, I reformatted the PC hard drive seven

times because of their crappy software.

[[Page 23669]]

They should be required to share their source code and THEY

SHOULD BE FINED AND REQUIRED TO REBATE MONEY TO THE PUBLIC AND THE

GOVERNMENT FOR THiS ABOMINABLE BEHAVIOUR.

Charles Dresback

15755 Laura Lane

Brookfield, WI 53005

262-781-4774

MTC-79

MTC-00000080

From: david.massey @us.pwcglobaLcom@ inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 5:43pm

Subject: Microsoft antitrust settlement

I still cannot see how the agreement reached with Microsoft

addresses their illegal gains, nor how it can seriously prevent such

a determined vioator (who still denies that it has committed wrong,

even after the appeals ruling!) from continuing it's illegal

behavior. Further, they continue to use their monopoly in the OS to

force monopolies in other areas of computing.

This is as if there was 1 mall in town (the internet) and all

stores have to be in that mall, and the owner of the mall makes

everyone enter the store through his own shop_and actively

tries to deter customers from continuing into the mall!

This settlement is bad for the people, bad for the economy, bad

for a competitive environment, and bad for justice. [I don't know

how you could get out of it, but you should certainly try.] David

Massey

MTC-80

MTC-00000081

From: Joseph Wood

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 5:57pm

Subject: Opposed to Terms of Settlement

The evidence of monopoly pricing by Microsoft is plainly seen at

any store that sells Windows XP. The Professional edition costs

199.00 and the home about 99.00 and that is just for upgrade. Add

$100.00 to that if it is a new purchase.

Windows XP is simply an operating system and should sell for no

more than $50.00 for a brand new copy if that much. But since they

are the only game in town if you want your software to be compatible

then you get to pay their price.

The settlement does nothing to address pricing of MS monopoly

products.

Oh and if you want to run MS Office be prepared to empty your

entire wallet. Their new activation technology could only be done by

a monopolist, no one would subject themselves to it otherwise. Oh,

and another point. The fact that Bill Gates is happy with this

settlement should be all the evidence needed to know it does not do

enough.

Is there really anybody who does not work for Microsoft (or is

an MS Shareholder) who thinks this is a good settlement? I think

not.

Joseph Wood

Systems Engineer

Corel Corporation

MTC-81

MTC-00000082

From: Maarten Legene

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 6:02pm

Subject: just order Microsoft to do three things.

The antitrust issue is basically about two questions:

1. What should be in an operating system and what shouldn't?

2. If it should be in an operating system, where should it be in

there?

Ad 1.

Internet Browsers, E-mail handlers, Word Processors, Image

manipulators, Speech recognizers are no part of an operating system.

These are applications.

The OS is the necessary software between applications and the

hardware. No less, no more.

So in reverse: if it's an application, it's not a (part of an)

operating system.

Ad 2.

Printerdrivers should be stored and found in a folder:

printerdrivers

Videodrivers should be stored and found in a folder:

videodrivers

fonts should be stored and found in a folder: fonts

etc etc etc.

Windows hides almost everything in places nobody can reach. The

structure of Windows is violating free enterprise.

So the anti trust regulations should be:

A. Order Microsoft go offer Windows as an OS only, and define

the OS as mentioned above.

B. Order to create a Microsoft OS company and a Microsoft

applications company, with a Chinese Wall between those two.

C. Order the OS company to restructure its OS in a way that it

will show a clear structure for everyone, including non-microsoft

application software creators.

Best regards / Maarten Legene

(product and business developer)

MTC-82

MTC-00000083

From: Troy Gann

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 6:09pm

Subject: What are you doing???

To whom it may concern,

As an American citizen and consumer I wish the government would

stop being so lame and actually do something against Microsoft. You

did nothing to protect me as a consumer or a citizen. Bill Gates

must be having a huge laugh at our government and how inept our

Department of Justice is. But then again no wonder our last election

was the laughing stock of the entire world. The DOJ should have

gotten some serious remedies done against Microsoft instead I can

now look forward to having even more stuff crammed down my throat by

Microsoft because they can now essentially get away with anything

they want to do to Window. Where did anyone (consumers) get anything

out of this? This was the biggest chicken sh-- out I have ever seen

our government do. This is not going to help the economy and now

Microsoft can put more products into thier operating system and

screw other companies over. To bad we can not vote for the lawyers

who work for the government I don't think any of them would get re-

elected.

Then again who knows how many government officials (Congressmen,

Senators and Judges) that Microsoft quietly gave money to or other

gifts in order to get off so leniently. This was not American

justice at it's finest. They broke the law and you barely slapped

thier wrists. Somewhere at Microsoft headquarters they are having a

huge party and laughing at you.

A very disenfranchised consumer

MTC-83

MTC-00000084

From: [email protected] @ inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 6:09pm

Subject: settlement doesn't do enough

I believe Ralph Nader and James Love's open letter (http://

www.cptech.org/at/ms/rnjl2ko1larkotellynov501.html) does a good job

of expressing my concerns about the settlement reached with

Microsoft.

I especially believe that any settlement must free consumers

from being required to use Microsoft software. To this end, I

believe that Microsoft's proprietary protocols and file formats

(i.e. the .doc format used by Word, and other office software file

formats, as well as protocols such as SMB/CIFS). Consumers currently

must either use Microsoft's office suite or products with, by far,

inferior support for the .doc file format in order to view documents

that the vast majority of computer users currently create. This has

been going on long enough that Microsoft has practically eradicated

all other office suites formerly available for the Windows operating

system. See also Andrew Tridgell's concerns that the settlement will

allow Microsoft to continue withholding information about the SMB/

CIES protocol (http://linuxtoday.comlnewsstory.php3?ltsn=200

1-11 -06-005-20-OP-MS).

The restrictions set on what Microsoft can require OEM vendors

to do or not do is a step in the right direction but not near

enough, especially now that there are very few companies in a

position to take advantage of these changes. This may have worked

well several years ago, but I doubt that it would be very effective

today.

I urge you to take Mr. Nader and Mr. Love's comments, as well as

the concerns I have expressed above seriously when reviewing the

settlement.

Sincerely,

David B. van Balen

MTC-84

MTC-00000085

From: Paul Fox, Ph.D.

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 6:12pm

Subject: Settlement with Microsoft

11/16/01

Dear Sir or Madam: I believe that the proposed settlement with

Microsoft is extremely biased in favor of Microsoft.

1. It does not punish Microsoft for their demonstrably illegal,

anti-competitive behavior. Since when do we simply ask convicted

criminals to not do it again? Let the punishment suit the crime, no

more no less.

[[Page 23670]]

2. It does not adequately protect the consumer or competing

companies from repeated anti-competitive behavior by Microsoft. Even

my own untrained eye (with respect to legal issues) found gaping

loopholes in the agreement. I remember Microsoft squeezing through

much smaller loopholes when they last settled with the government.

We deserve much better from our Justice Department.

Paul Fox

Paul L. Fox, Ph.D.

Associate Staff

Department of Cell Biology/NC1O

The Lerner Research Institute

Cleveland Clinic Foundation

9500 Euclid Avenue

Cleveland, OH 44195

216-444-8053 (Tel.)

216-444-9404 (Fax)

[email protected] (E-mail)

MTC-85

MTC-00000086

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 6:25pm

Subject: (no subject)

Unless you are willing to go against AOL, Oracle,

Sunmicrosystems, etc, etc, etc, you should push for everyone to go

along with the settlement, especially the State of California who

are probably being bought by Oracle, Sunmicrosystems, AOL, etc.,

etc....Get real.

MTC-86

MTC-00000087

From: that Jer guy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 6:26pm

Subject: MS breakup required

The current penalties for Microsoft will not bring them to

justice. There are more than enough vagaries and loopholes to allow

them to continue stifling competition and growing their monopoly.

The only way to successfully prevent the company from continuing in

its stifling monopoly of the market is to break up the company.

However, "horizontal" breakup into an OS company and

an applications company will not help. It should be broken up into

two or three companies "vertically", i.e. companies that

have both OS and applications elements. These companies can later

choose whether it is better business to focus on one of those areas,

but more competition is needed both in the OS market and the

applications market, in addition to the growing-together of OSes and

applications which a horizontal breakup would address.

Jeremy Faludi

Stanford University

MTC-87

MTC-00000088

From: Thomas S

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 1:34pm

Subject: Remedy Case

As an IT professional I need choices to satisfy my work daily.

MS has proven that they are in direct violation of Anti-trust laws

governing the denying the consume fo such choice by their use of

strong arm tactics and backdoor meetings. I strongly urgeyou to not

allow them acess to public schools in one case and to strongly

reprimand them in the other. This is for the good of business and

the IT community.

Regards,

L. Thomas Solet

MTC-88

MTC-00000089

From: Daniel Verbarg

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 1:33pm

Subject: Microsoft antitrust suit

I may not know all the details of the settlement, but I think

this is just another slap on the wrist for Microsoft. I do know in

the settlement that the school systems do not have to use Microsoft

products.

Basically this settlement is a payoff for Microsoft. Microsoft

is getting a few things out of this. One of the groups that is suing

them is now off of their back, Microsoft gets to look good by

"donating" money to poor school systems, they have an

opportunity to take over another area of software that they are not

the market leaders (school systems), and they proceed as normal in

their business practices. I am not saying MS should be split up, but

I'm not against that either. They treat OEM's and even consumers

like crap. Just look at the new licensing agreements. These new

licensing agreements are just a slap in the face of all them people

settling their cases against MS.

Please do something that could get more consumer choice in the

OS and app market.

Thanks,

Dan Verbarg

Systems Admistrator

PS_Don't you think all the virus problems are enough

evidence that there needs to be more choice and competition?

MTC-89

MTC-00000090

From: Don Rogers

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 10:31am

Subject: MS AntiTrust Settlement

Dear Dept of Justice,

I am writing to register my opinion regarding the recent

settlement that has been proposed for the MicroSoft Anti-Trust case.

I think that it is a joke to be handing Microsoft an foot in the

door of our schools as "punishment" for their anti-

competitive practices. This will be more of a reward, as is will

increase exposure to MS software to future computer users.

Please don't do this,

Don Rogers

City of Redding, Electric Dept.

drogers @ci.redding.ca.us

MTC-90

MTC-00000091

From: Bill Scott

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 6:32pm

Subject: penalties

When Standard Oil was found guilty of being a monopoly, it was

broken up into several companies, so that they would compete against

each other. Why isn't this being done to Microsoft? It's been found

to be a monopoly, why isn't the same penalty being enforced?

Bill Scott

MTC-91

MTC-00000092

From: Steve Amos

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 6:32pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement Comments

To the DOJ,

I am not an employee, nor a competitor of Microsoft. I have no

interest in software other than as a consumer. The following is my

comments regarding the settlement with Microsoft. Do believe

Microsoft should be penalized for their behavior. The agreement

should include Microsoft being regulated by the FTC (Federal Trade

Commission). This would be the proper agency to enforce penalties.

Do not want Microsoft broken up. This never made sense legally.

Do want Microsoft Operating Systems to allow easy installation of

competitor products. Before releasing new or revised operating

system, require Microsoft to release copies of new software 60 days

prior to release to other software companies to test compatibility

with their products. Microsoft will have to make the operating

system compatible or ?dll? conflict free. This will keep a level

laying field. Microsoft Office, Net and Future products also need a

level field with interacting products. A similar 60 day industry

pre-release needs to be part of the settlement.

Next require Microsoft to adopt suggested retail pricing, and

let the market price their products. This system has worked for

automobiles and other technology. The competition will drive down

prices for consumers. A fine would be appropriate to cover the

expense of the court case. However I am against excessive fees. They

drive down stock prices and set unreasonable standards for civil

judgments. $5 million as a fine would be excessive in my judgment.

This concludes my comments about penalties for Microsoft. I

appreciate your taking the public comment into consideration. If any

of these comments are unclear, please email me at

[email protected] or call 949-380-1250.

Thank you,

Steve Amos

Address below

Digital Alarms, Access Control, Security Cameras, Networks &

Phones Stop the Slime with Eye Crime.?

Steve Amos

President

Eye Crime Pro

24041-G Hollyoak

Aliso Viejo, CA 92656

949-380-1250

Pager 949-470-5057

MTC-92

MTC-00000093

From: Bobowski, Eamon

To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj .gov'

Date: 11/16/01 6:33pm

Subject: The Settlement Doesn't Address Market Dumping

[[Page 23671]]

Dear Department of Justice, You obviously don't have a clue as

to how the high-tech marketplace works if you think that the

proposed settlement will eliminate Microsoft's illegal practices,

prevent recurrence of the same or similar practices and restore the

competitive threat" the company faces from rivals.

I will leave the detailed arguments to people better versed in

these types of legal discussions, but as someone who works in the

industry I can assure you that I for one don't believe that this

settlement is an effective remedy. The long and the short of it is

this: Without the leverage of the Windows operating system, many if

not most of Microsoft's inferior freestanding products would have

long since failed, and the honest companies creating competing

products would actually be able to sell their products at a profit

and continue the cycle of investment and invention.

Instead, you have a never-ending cycle of small start-up

companies who take their products to market and are systematically

squashed by free products from Microsoft. This 1) discourages

innovation and entrepreneurialism, 2) discourages venture capital

investment, 3) concentrates wealth and power rather than distributes

it, 4) discourages economic expansion and 5) winnows the ranks of

companies who can go into the global marketplace and help bring

foreign dollars back home.

This is market dumping! The Japanese did it to us in the late

70's & 80's and America raised holy hell. Microsoft does it to

us in the late 90's & 00's and America turns it's back on us. I

think the real problem here is that the justice department fails to

recognize the similarities between VCRs, cars and software. Telling

Microsoft that it has to allow other companies to put their free

software on the desktop, does not address that the software should

not have to be free to compete with Microsoft in the first place.

Hire some people who understand how the world really works.

Eamon Bobowski

American Taxpayer

MTC-93

MTC-00000094

From: Joe Pontecorvo

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 6:44pm

Subject: Lets get this behind us

Lets get this behind us. From what I have read, the agreement

sounds fair all around. The ones that are still making a big noise,

and will continue to do so, are those people associated with

Microsoft competitors.

Yes, there are competitors. They would like to see Microsoft put

out of business or crippled so bad that they could sell their

products without any major Microsoft competition and maybe become

king of the hill. I am not a Microsoft employee or associated with

the company in any way. I am a user of Microsoft products, as are a

great number of people who are making all the anti Microsoft noise.

There are other choices out there for those that want to use

them. Lets close this chapter and get on with more important

business. I am a taxpayer and don't want to see anymore tax money

spent on this.

Joe

MTC-94

MTC-00000095

From: Richard Brubaker

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 6:50pm

Subject: I am a consumer

I am a consumer and came across this address while reading news

on my email (on the free Outlook Express that came with Windows

98..)

It mentioned "The Justice Department also set up an e-mail

address where consumers and companies may send their comments about

the antitrust settlement. The address is

"[email protected]" and will operate for 60

days."

My opinion is that this whole trial was brought about do to

"PAC money" from competing companies of Microsoft. And,

it's conclusion by the current judge is a blessing and the way

it should be handled... BUT it should have never gotten to this

point in my opinion... I feel that those companies that PUSHED so

hard to see Microsoft punished should be financially responsible for

the litigation expenses rather than the American Taxpayers and

Consumers.

MTC-95

MTC-00000096

From:

To:

Date:

Subject: american peopi

Andrew Schuster

Microsoft ATR

11/16/01 6:53pm

Thank you for coming go an agreement. This is the best thing for

the economy and the american people in general. Perhaps some

punishment would have been in order, but I think if you just keep in

eye on them it will be fine.

MTC-96

MTC-00000097

From: Mike Kolitz

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 6:58pm

Subject: The settlement is good for this country

DOJ, Microsoft, Judge Kollar-Kotelly and others, I have read the

settlement, and have come to my own conclusion that this is a fair

and just settlement. Personally, I don't believe that Microsoft ever

deserved any of this, but as the Appeals court did find that they

illegally maintained a monopoly, then so be it. Let me explain

briefly why I believe this settlement to be adequate.

It punishes Microsoft by restricting the contractual agreements

that it can enter with OEMs, effectively ending that method of

monopolizing the market.

*It was agreed upon by both the DOJ and Microsoft, which

would indicate that Microsoft would happily follow these guidelines,

and is fully intent on doing so.

*Microsoft realizes that it's reputation has been

tarnished. Reputation is very important business, and Microsoft

realizes that it has a lot of "making up" to do if it

wants to win that reputation back.

*This settlement, by requiring Microsoft to release

technical details about it's Windows desktop and server operating

systems, as well as Microsoft Middleware, will restore competition

in the marketplace by balancing the technical playing field.

I personally feel that Microsoft has always produced higher-

quality software than it's competition as a result of talent, not

abuse of power, and the restrictions placed upon Microsoft by this

settlement will allow Microsoft to do just that, while punishing

them fairly and justly for the times where they did "cross the

line."

Please consider this in your findings.

Thank you.

Mike Kolitz

Madison, Wisconsin

MTC-97

MTC-00000098

From: Dennis McClain-Furmanski

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 7:02pm

Subject: Too early?

I think the settlement came too early. I know of at least two

products which, according to their tech support people, require'

Internet Explorer to operate. These are Dragon Naturally Speaking (a

speech-to-typing program) and Adaptec Easy CD Creater. The fact is

these program may rely on some DLLs installed when IE is installed,

but they certainly do not require, or even necessarily use IE in

their operation.

I suspect this insistance that IE is a "requirement"

indicates collusion.

MTC-98

MTC-00000099

From: Iain MacAnTsaoir

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 7:04pm

Subject: the penalties against Microsoft

It is just my opinion, but my opinion is one that I must

express. ...

If we wonder just how it is that computer technology has come so

far in such a short period of time, then we need only look so far as

Microsoft. Have they been ruthless in conducting their business?

Yes. But that ruthlessness has allowed for there to be universal

standards which have produced conformities that alone have propelled

the development of this technology. We can all be certain that

without Microsofts approach we would be years behind where we are

now. It seems to me that penalizing a company for doing business, in

a calculated and efficient way, is not only contrary to the American

dream, but is also contrary to what American business

needs_these days especially. If you want to halt rapid

progress, and/or, if you want to set American business and the

economy back, then do proceed. Its not like the debacle of the Bell

break up is non-sequitor here.

John Wright

MTC-99

MTC-00000100

From: Eric Murray

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 7:17pm

Subject: Anti-trust Settlement

The current settlement does not really protect the consumors or

the competitors from the shark named Microsoft. It's Xbox

[[Page 23672]]

and Windows XP continues to destroy the ability of the other

companies to make any profit, since they continue to add

functionality to the system and dominate the technology area.

Eric Murray

MTC-100

MTC-00000101

From: dixon hamby

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 7:23pm

Subject: microsoft

Your judgement against microsoft was WAY to lenient. Their

history of abusing their operating system position is atrocious. The

settlement is a joke. They should be broken up and fined.

thank you

dixon hamby

http://www.idixon.coml

MTC-101

MTC-00000102

From: Charles B. Hoffman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 7:35pm

Subject: Since when is it illegal to make money in the United

States? If you don't like Microsoft products d

Since when is it illegal to make money in the United States? If

you don't like Microsoft products don't buy them! It is as simple as

that! I am embarrassed that my government would waste my money

prosecuting the American Dream. IF the product didn't work or was to

expensive, no one would buy it!

It must be a pretty good company, Huh! Find something important

to do like prosecuting illegal aliens.

MTC-102

MTC-00000103

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 7:35pm

Subject: "Settlement with Microsoft"!! HAH!

This a farce!! Microsoft has hurt so many people put out so much

crap and computer soft ware that only marginally works because they

dominate the market. This is not fair nor right.

They need to be censured by the bigger "bully." My

Win 98 was rushed to the market and used to crash constantly, It's

better now but still not reliab;le. I call it crash trash!!!

Their Hotmail system is so full of holes that I get trash and

Spain all the time and I only used it to one person. I was getting

the trash Spain before that.

Someone used Hotmail to put the Trojan Horse virus on my

computer via my AOL account.

I screamed at Hotmail and they told me that after a visual

inspection of that account's activity, that they would cancel it

because they were surfing looking for passwords!!!

And it took manual intervention to do this!! The world's

"premier" software company had to manually do this!!

Hotmail was free and anybody could get it with absolutely no

verification of critical personal data. I asked them how they could

be so irresponsible to allow such terrorist activity!!!

Break them up!!!!! Sanction them!!! Fine them billions!!!

Teach the bastards a lesson.

They also do things like this constanmtly: put out a cheap

imitation product, at low or no cost, run the competition out of

business and then dominate.

They are too dominant and need to be taught a lesson!!

Nick Schrier

Box 60104 Sacramento CA 95860

MTC-103

MTC-00000104

From: Mike Barrington

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 7:38pm

Subject: MS Settlement

Microsoft has been tried and convicted of leveraging it's OS

monopoly.

This ruling was affirmed by the second highest court in the

land.

With this settlement, the government has given MS a free reign

to leverage it's monopoly to the internet.

It saddens me to see our judicial system made a mockery by the

all mighty dollar.

MTC-104

MTC-00000105

From: Debra

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 7:38pm

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

Dear Sir/Madam:

I believe that the appeals court has been very wise in the

microsoft case. I am a consumer of microsoft products.I believe that

business must be allowed to grow and profit in America to keep free

interprise alive. I do feel that Microsoft was restrictive in

sharing their knowledge and that the threat of a Monopoly was a

concern.I believe that consumers and business's benefit when

companys have the right to develop products and prosper from that

development.

I realize that software is the product many companys have to

offer and that when a large corporation like Microsoft has the

technology to prevent the copying of their products it would benefit

other companys if Microsoft would sell them that technology. The

question I pose is should a company be forced to sell their secrets?

Perhaps the real issue is how long a company may keep new

technology to themselves before they must sell/share that

technology?. The Drug companies have a system that seems to work to

keep the cost of making drugs affordable.

Thanks for listening,

A Consumer

Debra Cook

JCCATTLE @PRODIGY.NET

MTC-105

MTC-00000106

From: Bill Binkley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 7:39pm

Subject: MicroSoft

To whom ever can help!

Important points:

FIRST ... consider how MicroSoft, (MS) gets market share for

products.

There was products for word processing and MS did not have a

product. At that point in time Word Perfect was the premium word

processing software. MS came out with MsWord which was not as good

and gave it away. Most people opted for the free Ms Word even though

it was not as good and thereby MsWord gained market share. NOW MS

gets several hundred dollars for these products. In current

environment you have to have MS's word processor on your system. The

same thing is true for MS's spread sheet software, Excel, and for

the Internet Explorer, (IE) browser being incorporated as part of

the OS. Without the Windows OS monopoly these things could not have

been possible. Competition is great but should be on an even playing

field.

SECOND ... MS is taunted for being innovative. When IBM designed

the first PC they thought that the market place for a PC was in the

100's of thousands. Therefore they did not want to design an OS.

Gates and crew purchased the DOS from a company for less than

$100,000.00 for use by IBM for the PC. Later MS incorporated the

Graphics interface from Apple. With this Windows OS monopoly they

have and are still forcing PC users to use their products because of

the uneven competition.

THIRD ... The browser war is the most recent example of the

arrogance of MS. There is absolutely no reason that IE should be

part of the Window's OS. The Windows OS is still unstable and

incorporating the IE makes it more so. Since the IE is part of the

OS is why the IE has considerable more security problems than other

browsers. A lot of viruses only attack a PC if you use IE. If you

have to reinstall the Windows OS, (the resolve some illogical

problem) you have to remove IE, reinstall Windows, then reinstall I.

With IE you can only have one version of the software on a PC. This

creates additional problems for designers and users as some web

sites only work with a certain version level of browsers. For

example on my PC four versions of Netscape are installed and IE 5.5.

I would like to have IE 5.5 and IE 6.1 both installed to test

software I am writing. Web software has to be made to work with the

majority of browsers and with the most used versions of those

browsers.

SUMMARY ... At a minimum the IE should be a separate product and

not part of the Windows OS. This would not hinder MS from being

innovative in any way.

B.W. Binkley

972 306-3911

CC:

MTC-106

MTC-00000107

From: Brian Smith

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 7:40pm

Subject: blindly dominated

Unfortunately, most Americans (due to ignorance of software and

the history of DOS, WIN 3.1, etc) have no idea of the damage that

Microsoft has done. Sure, one could claim, "well they were

just boosting the economy, keeping people employed, yada,

yada." But what about the bugs, the memory leaks, the

"undocumented features" of oh so many Microsoft products

... they have cost companies so much money. And it's all because one

man, Bill Gates, was so greedy that he sacrificed integrity and

blindly

[[Page 23673]]

shoved his product in the faces of a nation. Like so many crooked

companies, he didn't care about the consumer. He didn't care about

quality. He only wanted the mighty greenback in his pocket.

And all this time, the glorious yet fragile facade of Microsoft

shields the unsuspecting, ignorant, and innocent people of this

nation from the truth that lies rotting beneath. This rot affects

the integrity of a nation, only encouraging more companies and big

business to give up on the people and scramble for what we have been

told by so many to hold dear, wealth. But again I ask, at what cost.

Brian D. Smith

Kent, WA 98031

MTC_107

MTC-00000108

From: Stephen Parrott

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 7:42pm

Subject: MS penalty

Your proposed penalties of Microsoft aren't nearly enough to

restore competitiveness! Microsoft has been found guilty, and I as a

consumer and as a taxpayer expect appropriate action from the

government. However, what I see is an apparent decision to move on

to other things, and do whatever you can to settle this quickly.

Don't do this! The computer industry is important to the American

economy, and far too important to leave to Microsoft's domination!

I have watched Microsoft since the 1980's, and I firmly believe

their business practices have caused a lot of harm to the software

industry, and to me as a consumer. What no one knows, and what I can

only imagine, is what the software world would be today if Microsoft

hadn't put so many competitors out of business. Would we have

Windows if Apple hadn't developed the Mac system? Would we have

Excel without Lotus 1-2-3? Internet Explorer without

Netscape? The list goes on for most all of Microsoft products.

Without the other companies, Microsoft would have had no ideas to

copy from, and in addition very little reason to innovate. Now that

these other companies have become minor players, they aren't able or

willing to commit major resources to development. Microsoft claims

innovation, but has only displayed innovation when it comes to using

their software to achieve business goals. Innovation for providing

truly better software is left to people outside Microsoft; when a

successful improvement emerges then Microsoft takes it. I want the

justice department to take the responsibility of protecting a vital

element of modern life, and the proposed settlement does not seem to

do that. I don't want a facade; I want strong measures that truly

level the playing field so that real competition thrives again in

the software world. Come on guys, do your job!

Steve Parrott

MTC-108

MTC-00000109

From: Marvin Rohrs

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 7:47pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen:

I strongly object to the proposed Microsoft settlement_I

believe that the requirements are far too little when one considers

the damage that has been done to the millions of existing users of

their Windows O.S. The settlement will do absolutely nothing for me,

as an end user of Windows. I will still be stuck with operating

systems (I have 3 of them ? all Windows 98, 2nd Edition) that have

embedded in them many completely unwanted and totally unrelated

functions that occupy hard drive space and slow down my computers. I

will still be stuck with an 0.8. that does not interface well with

other, non-Microsoft software, resulting in frequent system freezes.

Historically, each version of Windows that Microsoft releases

promises to correct the bugs in previous versions, only to have a

whole new set of bugs show up. They never seem to correct all of the

bugs in a given version before releasing a new version_this

leaves the user stuck with the problems.

It is my opinion that Microsoft should be forced to provide

current users of Windows 95, 98, 2000, and ME with a means to

TOTALLY remove unwanted functions that have been illegally bundled

with the basic Windows O.S._such as their Internet browser, e-

mail, and messaging. They should be forced to support previous

versions until all of the bugs have been addressed and corrected.

They should also be forced, in the future, to totally separate

the Windows O.S. from their other software. Windows would then be

marketed as a basic O.S. for which the code has been provided to

other software developers so that their software can operate

seamlessly with Windows, instead of freezing the system. Their other

software would then have to compete fairly with software from other

companies. As it is now, they have an extremely unfair advantage.

They have literally destroyed Netscape and Lotus, both of which have

products that are far superior to the comparable Microsoft software.

Netscape used to be the dominant web browser until Microsoft used

their monopoly on the Windows O.S. to destroy them_even though

the Netscape browser is still superior to the Microsoft browser. The

Lotus 123 spreadsheet used to be the only spreadsheet to have until

Microsoft began to force computer manufacturers to offer their

Office bundle with their computers. Lotus 123 is still far superior

to M.S. Excel!!!! Unless Microsoft is forced to fully separate

Windows as an O.S. (for which they, unfortunately, have a monopoly)

from their software (for which they do not as yet have a monopoly),

they will ultimately force other software companies into the same

fate.

Finally, Microsoft should be forced to make each new version of

Windows backward compatible with software that ran satisfactorily on

previous versions. For example, I have no intention of upgrading to

the XP version because it is my understanding the there are many

incompatibilites with other older software, even though it is not

widely publicized. I have no intention of spending thousands of

dollars to upgrade to newer versions of other software just so that

I can boast the latest version of Windows and encounter a whole new

range of operating bugs.

Microsoft cannot be allowed to continue to use their monopoly to

drive other companies to the wall, as they have done in the past.

Sincerely,

Marvin K. Rohrs, P.E.

[email protected]

MTC-109

MTC-00000110

From: Larry E. Rhoads

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 7:48pm

Subject: Ability to purchase optional Operating Systems

My concern is that this settlement does not provide any remedy

to the many years which Microsoft has controlled the PC distribution

in relationship to consumers choice for the operating systems

available on a single PC. For example not even IBM could sell me a

PC which had a duel boot option where I could order Windows and

Linux or any other combination of other operating systems. The

salesman response is that no one ever asked for that option even

though I had just made that request. When you pushed the issue it

was then said it was not done. No one would say that they didn't

have a choice.

Microsoft is still not playing on a level field in relation to

the consumer where their controlling tactics have now left no viable

alternatives in many areas. It is great to get free software for a

year or two but then it is not much fun to find that this is the

only version of that type of software now available. Then you find

that to continue to use that software you are forced to buy a new

license at a price which is now more than three times what it should

be. Most companies can't use the free trick because they don't have

the level of control or resources to destroy another competitor.

Microsoft has and still does. I don't think this settlement goes far

enough and the level of oversight in not nearly strong enough to

provide an effective punishment or deterrent.

Sincerely

Larry Rhoads

Tracking #: F2B2 1 67FD4D9D5 11 A24400A02478256E801 CD 1 4E

MTC-110

MTC-00000111

From: Bill Dempsey

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 11/16/01 7:50pm

Subject: Opinion

Hi,

I'd just like to express my opinion on the entire Microsoft

anti-trust issue. For many years, Netscape had a monopoly on the

browser market with no real competitors. This allowed them to

dictate standards that all web developers were forced to accommodate

if they wanted their sites to be viewed. Nobody said a word about

Netscape. For many years, Norton Utilities held a virtual monopoly

in the hard drive management and repair category of software.

Another example is Sun with it's total domination of the Internet

server market for so many years. Does anyone else remember the total

dominance of CPM in the workplace prior to DOS and then Windows? My

point is that every apparently monopolistic hold on some aspect of

the computer industry has

[[Page 23674]]

been broken by one or more companies with better products at some

point. Microsoft got to it's current level of dominance by offering

better products, plain and simple. This is called competition and

isn't that what a capitalist society is all about? The PC industry

has also benefited from the fact that wide adoption of Microsoft's

exceptional products has created standards which allowed the

industry to progress at a much faster pace. Without these standards,

I am convinced we would be at least a decade behind where we are

now. With all of this in mind, I obviously believe that your

settlement with Microsoft is a good thing for everyone. I also

believe the economy will bounce back quicker under the unfettered

leadership of Microsoft and it's visionary leader. No, I don't work

for Microsoft. I even get annoyed sometimes with them when their

software crashes. But honestly, their software crashes less often

than most and I use it constantly. Kudos to your team for working

out a reasonable solution without killing a technological leader we

need during these harsh times.

Best regards,

_Bill

Bill @Dempsey.net

http://www.bill.dempsey.net

"You can predict the future if you create it."

MTC-11

MTC-00000112

From: Bob LaGarde

To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj .gov'

Date: 11/16/01 7:51pm

Subject: Support for Microsoft Settlement Proposal

In 1996 I founded LaGarde, Incorporated, a Kansas Corporation,

engaged in the business of building "Business Applications for

the Internet." In launching this venture I entered partnership

programs with AT&T, Netscape, Novell, Digex and Microsoft. I was

rejected for AT&T's progra

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.