United States v. Microsoft Corporation; Public Comments; Notice (MTC-00003461 - MTC-00007629)

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

[Unknown Section]

[Pages 24495-24930]

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

[FR Doc No: X02-160503]

MTC-00003461

From: David Hibshman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 6:40am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Bill wins again. Computer Industry loses again. One look at

Microsoft's latest OS offering(XP) makes it clear why Microsoft's OS

and applications should not be bundled together and should probably

be spun off as separate companies all together. Windows Xp offers

MP3/WMA creation, Video Editing, Cd Creation, Chat, Messaging, and

Video Conferencing all as part of the core software required to run

a computer. Microsoft clearly uses it's foothold on the Market to

offer otherwise successful third party software in it's own OS to

help ensure they keep their grasp on the industry and to bump off

smaller vendors from becoming bigger competitors. Microsoft

qualifies as a monopoly in every sense of the definition and should

be punished for it.

MTC-00003462

From: Paul Rech

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 7:09am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir/Madam,

You're no doubt tired of reading these e-mails, so let me cut to

the chase.

The proposed settlement with Microsoft will not do a thing. None

of the provisions will have any effect, which may be what the

current administration really wants.

Here's what would make a difference and it's quite simple.

1) Open their file formats, protocols, APIs.

2) Allow vendors to clearly price the cost of the Windows OS

when you purchase a PC.

The former will allow all companies to compete again in

application software. MS keeps data locked into their apps by

changing these formats every now and then. Forcing consumers to keep

using their products. MS Word is the standard not because it's the

best, but because so many businesses have data stored in those types

of docs. They don't even want to think about the hassle of

converting. The latter will show people how much they have to pay

for the MS OS and allow them to choose to pay for it or not. Lots of

people have a perfectly good copy of Win 98 sitting around, why

should they have to buy XP with a new computer when they don't want

or need it?

Get rid of bundling once and for all.

Paul Rech

Computer Consultant

651-430-9935

[email protected]

MTC-00003463

From: Ray Drainville/Argument from Design

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 7:13am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom it May Concern:

I'm adding my voice to those who are against the settlement with

Microsoft over its monopolistic practices, as that settlement stands

today. There are some simple, yet important reasons why I'm doing

this:

*�1AHaving MS give away a billion dollars worth of software

& refurbished hardware to the country's poorest schools doesn't

punish the company: what it does is greatly strengthen their hand in

one of the last areas in which they don't currently have a monopoly.

One possible solution would be to have MS donate one billion dollars

to these schools, to have them use this money for IT as the schools

see fit.

*�1AThis billion-dollar giveaway looks very expensive for MS

on paper, but that number is based upon the market value of the

hardware & software: the actual cost to MS is estimated to be

about one-tenth of that figure. This seems a ludicrously tiny

settlement for such an important violation of law. Once again,

forcing MS to donate one billion dollars to these schools would be a

more effective way to punish the company.

*�1AAs the settlement stands, it requires MS to share

various types of code with commercial rivals;

`commercial' is spelled out in the document quite

clearly. However, currently MS`s strongest competitors come from

non-profit entities: Apache (web-serving software), Linux, Perl, and

those who are building a compatible & free version of MS`s .NET

initiative. By not specifically including these non-profit

organizations in the settlement documentation, the DoJ is allowing

MS to protect its monopoly from those organizations who are most

strenuously competing with it.

*�1AThe settlement does nothing to propose what is to be

done should MS violate the agreement. What if MS is proven to be

acting in an uncompetitive fashion again? The agreement does not

give the DoJ any teeth in enforcing the settlement. It doesn`t give

MS any reason to comply.

I would strongly urge the DoJ to be extremely cautious when

writing up settlements with Microsoft. History has shown that the

company is more than willing to violate agreements, and the past

decade or so has seen them disregard mild remedies in order to

pursue their own interests. Give the settlement some teeth;

Microsoft, after all, was found guilty. Currently, they won`t even

admit that.

Best,

Ray Drainville

Director, Argument from Design

Argument from Design-Web & Multimedia

[email protected] http://www.ardes.com

MTC-00003464

From: Cody DeHaan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 7:19am

Subject: What a Joke!

I find it rather a joke that Microsoft gets no punishment for

what they did.

Don`t get me wrong, I use Microsoft`s products, but something

should be done to prevent it from happening in the future.

MTC-00003465

From: Rob Roth

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 7:34am

Subject: Settlement

Microsoft should be reined in on a tight leash. The 9 holdout

states are correct in their perception of what this company can do

if not tightly controlled.

Microsoft has the technology to end up controlling every ones

computer and CHARGING for it if not controlled. They have already

demonstrated that. 20 years ago they broke up IBM for basically the

same reason they are looking at Microsoft.

Please stick to mission and hold tight the reins on Microsoft.

Rob Roth

Hernando, Florida.

MTC-00003466

From: Jerry Davis

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 7:57am

Subject: comments on your judgement

It is quite clear to me that this was written by lawyers who

have no real experience with software development and software

coding. I was agreeing to quite a bit of this until III.J in which

you opened the floodgates of a gigantic loophole for Microsoft to

jump into. Given the history of Microsoft in the last 10 years. This

amounts to `business as usual' for Microsoft. What a

waste of our tax dollars. You all did a masterful job during the

trial in showing us what a Monopolistic power Microsoft was, then

with this judgement you have really blown it. No wonder Bill Gates

calls this a `fair' settlement. If I were Bill I would

too!

I would strongly suggest you take into account the somewhat

stricter format that the other nine states are taking.

Two things that were not addressed at all: 1) data formats. The

reason Microsoft has such a hold on the PC market is its office

products. He who holds the keys to the data, has control. There was

NO mention of providing the data format definitions of the office

products that MS has to third parties. 2) real competition. Most of

your document was about not limiting competition in the Windows

space. Very little about real competition from Apple and Linux,

FreeBSD, Beos and other possible contenders.

The reason that real competition will not be achieved with your

document is that there is no provision for MS to be open with its

data formats, and communication protocols. What about what they did

with Kerberos with their `embrace, extend, and

extingush' method of changing the Kerberos authentication

scheme that all other OS`s use but now do not work with Windows

Servers?

Until there is real choice of OS, meaning that MS Office

products are required to run on all other Platforms, other OS`s will

never have a real chance to compete. And until we get real

competition MS will continue to have a monopoly in the software

industry. And we as consumers will never have a real choice.

MTC-00003467

From: Stephen Perez

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 8:41am

Subject: Support for States/DC Microsoft Settlement

I just wanted to quickly write in support of the settlement

proposed by the 9 states and DC. The DOJ`s previous decision was too

much of a wrist slap, full of loopholes which Microsoft`s lawyers

will be more than happy to exploit. To be quite honest, after

reading the original proposal (not Judge Jackson`s, but the next

one) I got the eerie feeling that

[[Page 24293]]

Microsoft`s lawyers were more technically savvy than the

governments_making sure that there were carefully worded

exceptions for any of the major points that may have actually had

any `bite'. While I am not a lawyer, I am a software

engineer, and if I worked for Microsoft, I would find it quite easy

to come up with some technical reasons why a particular

`remedy' could be circumvented. Now about perception. It

appears to me something odd is going on. The DOJ does an about face

in the prosecution of Microsoft_once they appeared to really

be trying to do something to help out the consumers. Now, we are

given a proposals which absolutely lacks teeth. Microsoft at one

time allowed themselves to be billed a million dollars a day just to

be stubborn and not comply with government mandates. Now, Microsoft

seems more than happy to do anything the government asks. I think

this is because they realize that they`re not being asked to do much

at all.

Anyway, please give serious consideration to the recent states/

DC proposal in this matter and give the consumers/competitors some

real relief.

Stephen Perez,

Software Engineer,

Austin, Texas.

MTC-00003468

From: Craig L. Stevenson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 8:36am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The proposed selltlement in this case is waay off! Instread of

punishinng the guilty party, he is being rewarded! THis is insane.

The settlement needs to be tougher.

From a Robert X. Cringely article :

The remedies in the Proposed Final Judgement specifically

protect companies in commerce_organizations in business for

profit. On the surface, that makes sense because Microsoft was found

guilty of monopolistic activities against `competing'

commercial software vendors like Netscape, and other commercial

vendors_computer vendors like Compaq, for example. The

Department of Justice is used to working in this kind of economic

world, and has done a fair job of crafting a remedy that will rein

in Microsoft without causing undue harm to the rest of the

commercial portion of the industry. But Microsoft`s greatest single

threat on the operating system front comes from Linux_a non-

commercial product_and it faces a growing threat on the

applications front from Open Source and freeware applications.

The biggest competitor to Microsoft Internet Information Server

is Apache, which comes from the Apache Foundation, a not-for-profit.

Apache practically rules the Net, along with Sendmail, and Perl,

both of which also come from non-profits. Yet not-for-profit

organizations have no rights at all under the proposed settlement.

It is as though they don`t even exist.

Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against

not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not

describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols

affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don`t

meet Microsoft`s criteria as a business: `...(c) meets

reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for

certifying the authenticity and viability of its business,

...'

So much for SAMBA and other Open Source projects that use

Microsoft calls. The settlement gives Microsoft the right to

effectively kill these products.

Section III(D) takes this disturbing trend even further. It

deals with disclosure of information regarding the APIs for

incorporating non-Microsoft `middleware.' In this

section, Microsoft discloses to Independent Software Vendors (ISVs),

Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs), Internet Access Providers

(IAPs), Internet Content Providers (ICPs), and Original Equipment

Manufacturers (OEMs) the information needed to inter-operate with

Windows at this level. Yet, when we look in the footnotes at the

legal definitions for these outfits, we find the definitions specify

commercial concerns only. But wait, there`s more! Under this deal,

the government is shut out, too. NASA, the national laboratories,

the military, the National Institute of Standards and

Technology_even the Department of Justice itself_have no

rights. It is a good thing Afghanistan is such a low-tech adversary

and that B-52s don`t run Windows.

I know, I know. The government buys commercial software and uses

contractors who make profits. Open Source software is sold for

profit by outfits like Red Hat. It is easy to argue that I am being

a bit shrill here. But I know the way Microsoft thinks. They

probably saw this one coming months ago and have been falling all

over themselves hoping to get it through. If this language gets

through, MICROSOFT WILL FIND A WAY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT.

Is the Department of Justice really that stupid? Yes and no.

They showed through the case little understanding of how the

software business really functions. But they are also complying with

the law which, as Microsoft argued, may not be quite in sync with

the market realities of today. In the days of Roosevelt and Taft,

when these laws were first being enforced, the idea that truly free

products could become a major force in any industry_well, it

just would have seemed insane.

Craig L. Stevenson

MTC-00003469

From: Sondra Janssen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 8:41am

Subject: Microsoft

It`s time to stop making the lawyers richer. This is just some

wanting something for nothing or to the left politics. Real life

things are not equal. Let the economy run.

MTC-00003470

From: jason mark

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 9:08am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

As a shareholder of both Microsoft and Apple Stock and a US

citizen, I hope that you take the time to look closely as how this

proposed settlement will affect Microsoft`s monopoly. From what I

have read it appears that the proposed settlement will actually

increase Microsoft`s monopoly in one of the few places where their

competitors (specifically Apple Computer) remain strong.

As proven time and time again the cost of Upkeep for Microsoft

systems is so astronomically high, where Apple computers last longer

with less maintenance.

By `donating' billions of dollars to schools,

Microsoft will in effect be locking them into an expensive upgrade

and maintenance package with an inferior solution, while extending

their monopoly into a market that they have traditionally had

trouble making inroads into. Please don`t permit this to happen.

Jason

Gravity Switch

89 Market St.

Northampton, MA 01060

www.gravityswitch.com

413.586.9596

MTC-00003471

From: jason mark

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 9:11am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I`d like to also put in a good word for Steve Satchell.

Jason

Gravity Switch

89 Market St.

Northampton, MA 01060

www.gravityswitch.com

413.586.9596

MTC-00003472

From: Clyde Stauffer

To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov

Date: 12/8/01 8:50am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Sirs:

I believe the proposed anti-monopoly settlement with Microsoft

Corporation is inadequate on two counts:

(1) It does not adequately address contracts with EOMs that

restrict their rights to offer multiple operating systems on the

computers they sell. This restriction, from 1992 onward, made it

very difficult (actually, nearly impossible) for anyone to purchase

a computer with the IBM operating system OS/2 pre-loaded. I use OS/

2, but only because I am bought it independently and installed it

myself. Most ordinary computer purchasers are not capable of, and do

not want to, exert this degree of independence from the Microsoft

monopoly.

(2) It does not adequately address the competition extant from

non-profit software entities such Linux and similar efforts. If

these groups are not protected from the predatory efforts of

Microsoft they will not be able to fully compete, a situation which

would not be to the advantage of the consumer.

I respectfully submit that Microsoft should be:

(1) Prevented from making any type of excusionary contract with

OEMs; and

(2) Forced to treat all competitors, profit and non-profit

oriented alike, on the same basis.

[[Page 24294]]

Sincerely yours,

Clyde Stauffer

MTC-00003473

From: William Woesner

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 8:59am

I believe that Microsoft has a monopoly. Separate Microsoft into

different companies, IE explorer,

Office, and operating system

William Woesner

MTC-00003474

From: Tony Hardie-Bick

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 10:05am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

There is one very simple remedy that is required: Microsoft must

open its Office file formats.

As a UK citizen, I have been alarmed by the way in which

Microsoft is playing government agencies like the UK National Health

Service for dummies. Again, they are preparing a trap that involves

the use of closed file formats, the significance of which will only

be felt incrementally, in years to come.

The opening of Microsoft source code is not as important.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Hardie-Bick

London, England.

MTC-00003475

From: Todd VerBeek

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 11:06am

Subject: what a waste

The settlement with Microsoft isn`t a setttlement; it`s a

capitulation. The restrictions it places on Microsoft are as feeble

and meaningless as the ones in the consent decree of several years

ago... the toothless slap on the wrist that made this suit necessary

in the first place. It accomplishes nothing but to

_condone_ and _endorse_ the position of

Microsoft as the 800-ton gorilla of the technology industry.

Compelling Microsoft to donate software to poor schools isn`t a

punishment or a remedy of any kind; it`s an endorsement of predatory

pricing! Let`s all watch as Microsoft gives software away (below

cost), drives the remaining competition out of the education market,

and later starts charging for the (practically mandatory) upgrades.

Consumers will still be offered nothing but superficial

variations on the Microsoft blueprint when we go shopping for a PC.

They will be offered a single operating system, a single word

processor, a single spreadsheet, etc. Programmers (my livelihood)

will have the `freedom' to innovate outside the world

Microsoft defines... and die of starvation because that world is

dwindling to nothing, or the `freedom' to innovate

within the Microsoft model, hoping for some table scraps as we help

to advance Microsoft`s business plans. This settlement assures those

of use who aren`t in bed with Microsoft with only one consolation:

There will be another suit in a few years, and by that time

Microsoft`s monopolistic practices (and the damages therefrom) will

be even greater, and even more difficult for the courts to ignore.

Todd VerBeek

1311 Lake Dr SE #2

Grand Rapids MI 49506

MTC-00003476

From: The Bryant`s

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 10:22am

Subject: Settlement

I cannot believe that the DOJ would spend so much of the

Taxpayers money to achieve so little in the Microsoft case. The

taxpayers are not served by the DOJ decision. Computer users are not

served by the decision. Our children are not served well by the

decision. The only entities served by the decision are Microsoft and

the legal community. I think the hard working taxpaying community

should come away from this issue with more than a due bill from

Microsoft and the DOJ.

I support Red Hat`s proposal to exclude software donations by

Microsoft to the public school system or any organization. Also, it

would be in the Taxpayers interest to prevent Microsoft (or any

company) from selling the Academic Edition of its products at a

tremendous discount from what other users must pay. This practice

creates artificial demand for Microsoft products by forcing students

to learn products which may be inferior to other software. Academic

Edition sales harm smaller software developers by not giving them

access to a potentially large user market.

Public education dollars should not be spent to subsidize the

sale and teaching of proprietary products in the public school

system.

Mark Bryant

Secratary/Treasurer

Charmark Computer Services, Inc.

1100 West Lloyd Expressway

Suite 102

Evansville, IN 47708

Telephone (812) 422-1776

MTC-00003477

From: David May

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 10:21am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am truly disappointed by the settlement that was brokered

between the DOJ and Microsoft. It does nothing of substance to reign

back Microsoft`s illegal behavior in light of their monopoly on the

PC desktop. Microsoft is poised to attack multimedia companies and

ISPs with their current exclusive desktop policies and I fear if

nothing is done to curb their behavior, these companies will no

longer provide viable competition in a market place the desperately

needs it. I feel that if this settlement goes through with all the

exceptions that are built into it, we will be here again in several

years trying to reign Microsoft in with legal action. They have

shown that they are more than willing to ignore or circumvent

business limitations placed on them by the authorities. They have

also shown that they are more than willing to lie about their

behavior if they feel it is in their best interest. They will find

loopholes in this settlement and stretch them to their fullest to

continue with business as usual.

Please listen to the concerns of the 9 outstanding states and of

industry groups that are raising their voices (like Ralph Nader et.

al.). If this settlement goes through as scripted, we will be back

here again trying to reign Microsoft back in. The landscape of

competition will look much more desolate than it does now, though,

if Microsoft has its way.

Thank you.

David May

Senior UNIX System Administrator

Albuquerque TVI

505-224-3015

MTC-00003478

From: Patrick Mc Govern

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 10:34am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Summary of the Microsoft judgement: Microsoft could not have

dreamed up a better judgement if they tried! Imagine being punished

by advertising your own products!!

Proposed judgement:

Since Microsoft`s actions affected the rights of the people, I

propose the following:

(1) Microsoft would pay 2 billion dollars to start a trust fund

that would operate in perpetuity and support the development of free

software. The Free Software Foundation or similar organization could

be a good target for this effort. Their web address is http://

www.gnu.org/. This effort would further develop the foudational

software for computers that is similar to the infrastructure of our

national highway system. I hate toll roads!

This action would seem to be the punishment that fits the crime.

It would encourage competition, creativity, and reward the WORLD

with free software. It would also allow Microsoft to compete as one

company and stay competetive.

Pat

MTC-00003479

From: Cray Horse

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 10:53am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Department of Justice,

Your original remedy called for MSFT to be split apart; now you

are content that MSFT merely donate their software to schools. This

is a horrible solution, since it will only serve to strengthen the

MSFT monopoly in the educational market. Apple has suggested that

MSFT be required to donate a large amount of cash to the schools,

which would certainly harm MSFT profits in the short term but would

not strike at the heart of their monopoly.

The heart of the MSFT monopoly derives from their control of the

operating system in conjunction with their control of dominant

desktop applications, such as MS Office. Every time someone emails

us an Powerpoint presentation or a Word document, we are forced to

use a MSFT application. Everytime MSFT changes one of their file

formats, we are forced to upgrade our Office installation so that we

can continue to process our email correspondence. Since the Office

applications are only supported on MSFT operating systems, we are

also forced to

[[Page 24295]]

purchase MSFT operating systems and keep them up-to-date against our

will.

I therefore propose the following simple conduct rememdy for the

MSFT monopoly: require MSFT to support ALL of their application

software on ALL operating systems with a non-negligible installed

base (eg., at least 1% market share). That would require MSFT to

support MS Office, Internet Explorer, Outlook, and SQL Server on

Apple OS X, Sun Solaris, Linux, Palm OS, and others as well. This

solution would strike at the heart of MSFT`s operating system

monopoly, because now (for the first time) our choice of application

software is truly separated from our choice of operating system.

The details are tricky but managable by an appropriately careful

mind. The restriction must apply to MSFT and any company in which

they had more than 5% direct or indirect interest; otherwise, they

could circumvent the restriction by spinning off their application

software groups into subsidiaries. The restriction should prohibit

them from releasing any application on Windows until it had been

released on all competitive operating systems. The restriction must

also ensure that the quality of the non-Windows ports to be at least

as high as the Windows ports, otherwise they could torpedo the

restriction by making their software unusable on non-Windows

systems. (For example, you could impose financial penalties if the

quality of the non-Windows port falls below the quality of the

Windows port, or prevent them from shipping/selling Windows products

while the non-Windows were of lesser quality.) And so on.

Sincerely,

A citizen who believes in competitive markets

MTC-00003480

From: Terry Braun

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 10:43am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

I am a programmer with 20 years experience. The proposed

settlement with Microsoft is pathetic- the real message is that MS

is free to continue its anti-competitive practices. In the process

it makes the US government look incompetent- and the US government

is supposed to be MY representative in this business.

Your lack of vigorous prosectution of this case will ultimately

cost this country by making its software industry less competitive

and therefore opening the door to other non-US companies. The

current settlement brings discrace on our government since it is

clear that there is neither an understanding of the world of

computers nor a desire to obtain that expertise.

Do better

Terry Braun

612-963-6570

MTC-00003481

From: Don Allen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 11:17am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe the settlement with Microsoft is entirely inadequate.

There is basically no penalty imposed and few restrictions on future

action by Microsoft. I think the only way to prevent Microsoft from

continuing to exploit its monopolistic position is to split the

Operating System into a different company from its other software

offerings. By allowing these to continue to be developed by the same

company, there is no incentive for them to expose interfaces, or

reason for them not to continue to imbed unrelated products into the

operating system. This combination also stifles development of these

products for other operating systems_does anyone think that

the MS Office suite would not be available on Unix, Solaris, or

Linux if it was owned by anyone else? Other than Lotus Smartsuite

and Star Office, neither of which has a significant market share,

there are no other office suites left on the market. I remember when

there were over a dozen word processors, many spread sheet programs,

and specialized packages for publishing. Now you have basically one

choice, which is expensive and provides functions not needed or used

by most of the market. I believe that if there were other choices,

this software would be offered in various price ranges with

functionality more in line with users needs. Microsoft has been

innovative in software development, but this is not what has made

them what they are today_it is their willingness to push

others out of the market (most word processors, Netscape, etc.) or

buy them (Visio, Fox Software, etc.) to eliminate the competition,

then raise prices and justify it by pointing to functionality that

is not needed or used by the majority of the market.

In summary, I think the settlement is totally inadequate. Only a

separation of at least the operating system from the other software

is required to once again stimulate development and innovation in

the software market place. Microsoft now is a much bigger threat

than IBM was when it was broken up, and I believe the remedy should

be at least as severe, if not more so.

Don Allen

Allen Information Consultants, Inc.

Indianapolis, IN

`How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?

Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn`t make it a leg.'

_Abraham Lincoln

MTC-00003482

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 11:12am

Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust

The proposed settlement with Microsoft is a travesty of Justice.

This is an Antitrust settlement, so why let them put their machines

in schools. The ultimate solution would be give competitors machines

(Apple, which has an almost 60% share in the school marketand can

run Windows operating system if necessary). Using their products

would just make their slice of the pie larger and indoctrinate a new

generation into being a Microsoft only culture. I do Apple

consulting to private and Parochial schools who cannot afford a full

time staff person for technical support, as opposed to tax based

funded public schools. As I`ve seen locally anytime a school board

insists on a conversion to Microsoft based systems the district goes

from a Technology Teacher having part time duties maintaining the

MacOS Computers to 3 or 4 Full time MCSE certified staff at $60K/YR

(Philadelphia region) to keep their Microsoft Systems functioning. I

see the same in Businesses the MIS departments specify Microsoft for

job security reasons and to be able to have an MIS staff of more

than one.

I`ve been involved in Computers in Education since the early

70`s when IBM and Digital Equipment were the computers of choice.

I`ve also worked for Microsoft service providers and left when the

Microsoft Mantra was the main focus of their sales efforts

`only sell Microsoft products because we know they work

together'.

I just learned that America Online is discontinuing Netscape as

a Web Browser, which is the only real alternative to Microsoft

Internet Explorer which is under contract with AOL as the default

browser.

Kenn Marks

[email protected]

Digital Data Systems

MTC-00003483

From: Alton, Matthew

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

Date: 12/8/01 11:10am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please prosecute the monopolistic filth known as Microsoft Corp.

to the limits of the law. Your current proposed settlement

constitutes a dereliction of duty bordering on treason.

Thank you.

Matthew Alton

UNIX System Administration

MTC-00003484

From: John Bishop

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 11:18am

Subject: Microsoft

Hello,

I must admit that I am rather disappointed with the recent

events in the Microsoft anti-trust case. Microsoft was found to be

monopolistic, yet part of their punishment is to hand to them on a

silver platter a market that Apple has worked very hard to

cultivate. We are giving Microsoft absolutely no reason to change

their practices. Even after being found monopolistic, Microsoft

released Windows XP with invasive activation, and is making great

strides toward its dream of software as a service, which I find to

be quite alarming.

Thank You,

John Bishop

MTC-00003485

From: Number One

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 11:34am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

This sounds much better for everybody. I see the justice

department folding before corporate terrorists.

George Frick

[email protected]

Red Hat Proposes to Enhance Microsoft Settlement Offer By

Providing Open Source Software to All U.S. School Districts

[[Page 24296]]

Open Source leader proposes to provide software to every school

district in the United States if Microsoft provides computing

hardware for the 14,000 poorest school districts

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, N.C.?(BUSINESS WIRE)?Nov. 20, 2001?Red

Hat, Inc. (Nasdaq:RHAT_news) today proposed an alternative to

the settlement announced today of the class-action lawsuit against

Microsoft. Red Hat offered to provide open-source software to every

school district in the United States free of charge, encouraging

Microsoft to redirect the money it would have spent on software into

purchasing more hardware for the 14,000 poorest school districts.

Under the Red Hat proposal, by removing Microsoft`s higher-priced

software from the settlement equation, Microsoft could provide the

school districts with many more computers_greatly extending

the benefits Microsoft seeks to provide school districts with their

proposed settlement. Microsoft had proposed that, in settlement of

class-action claims of price-gouging, the company donate computer

hardware, software and support to 14,000 poor school districts

throughout the United States. Under the proposed settlement, a

substantial part of the value provided to schools would be in the

form of Microsoft software.

The Red Hat`s alternative proposal includes the following:

Microsoft redirects the value of their proposed software donation to

the purchase of additional hardware for the school districts. This

would increase the number of computers available under the original

proposal from 200,000 to more than one million, and would increase

the number of systems per school from approximately 14 to at least

70.

Red Hat, Inc. will provide free of charge the open-source RedHat

Linux operating system, office applications and associated

capabilities to any school system in the United States.

Red Hat will provide online support for the software through the

Red Hat Network.

Unlike the Microsoft proposal, which has a five-year time limit

at which point schools would have to pay Microsoft to renew their

licenses and upgrade the software, the Red Hat proposal has no time

limit. Red Hat will provide software upgrades through the Red Hat

Network online distribution channel.

MTC-00003486

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 11:41am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I wish to exercise my rights under the Tunney Act to comment on

the proposed Microsoft Settlement.

I am particularly comcerned about the proposed settlement`s

effect on much of the software that I use, software produced by non-

comercial entities. Many people agree that it is free and open-

source software that is Microsoft`s greatest competition and thus

should be considered in the setlement.

Section III(J)(2) of the settlement contains strong language

stating that Microsoft is not required to describe nor license API,

Documentation, or Communications Protocols affecting authentication

and authorization to companies that don`t meet Microsoft`s criteria

as a business.

Section III(D) again prescribes certain rights to Microsoft

competitors yet these rights apply only to comercial entities. I

would like to see a settlement that opens the file formats of

Microsofts dominant applications so that other applications on other

platforms can read and write to them.

Chris Morris

MTC-00003487

From: Steve Vasko

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 11:54am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As a computer reseller I strongly support the 9 state

alternative over the justice departments initial settlement

proposal. Porting office to multiple platforms is very important.

Please consider keeping this in any final proposal that is put

forward.

Thanks,

Steve Vasko

Operations Manager

Voice305-695-9779

Fax305-695-9799

www.editopia.com

MTC-00003488

From: dan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 12:01pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The primary weapon, beyond the established, effective desktop

monopoly, is data lock-in. Microsoft keeps data jailed and keeps

changing the locks to perpetuate the protection by extortion. A

remedy should address this problem directly. Making it an easier

matter for any customer to take their data out of the Microsoft jail

would promote competition without placing Microsoft under strict,

long-term control of a government committee. The lock that allows

illegal leveraging of the monopoly is the secrecy and continuous

morphing of file formats and APIs. People should not be forced to

purchase MS products in order to communicate with other people and

businesses!

I believe the current settlement is totally ineffective in

curtailing MS`s behavior. It is less than a `slap on the

wrist', so to speak. Thank you for your time and vigilance,

Dan Williamson

MTC-00003489

From: Lee

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 11:50am

Subject: Microsoft Juggernaut

Greetings,

It looks from here like you caved in to Bill Gates and his

empire. They are unrepentant and poised to continue with their brand

of business as usual....which means that we consumers are hurt yet

again. They are thugs. You know full well that they are a predatory

entity, a corporation that uses its monopoly like a club to kill any

real competition. All legal wrangling aside, Micrsoft can`t dodge

that fact. When they are left to do as they will, they have

exclusive right by economic threat to siphon off of society`s need

for computing power like the parasites they are. The `playing

field' Microsoft so proudly points to as its proving grounds

for its product viability is littered with dead technology that, 90

percent of the time, was far supuerior to the laughable offerings of

Bill Gates and crew. The technology died, along with the companies

that developed them because of Microsoft`s stranglehold on the

market, and its tactics of excusivity deals, threats, and

intimidation. Remember how they started out with DOS, a poor

imitation of SCO UNIX? They had exclusive software rights to every

PC sold by the then-standard, IBM. Clones had to keep some measure

of compatibility, so they too contracted with Microsoft. Back in

those days, Apple`s Mac with windowing, buttons, mouse and slick GUI

interface was laughed at as a toy. Unix people were fringe kooks.

Did anyone else see that when Windows emerged, it was a bad

photocopy of Apple OS and Unix Motif/X-Windows?? They basically

stole other ideas and profited from them. Seems I remember that the

government did the wink-and-nod bit a few years ago when Apple

asserted and proved its claim. Why is the government so fearful of

Bill Gates? Does it figure he will be satisfied one day and just

stop?? There are a few of us who make the choice in our personal

lives to use superior product, such as Linux and Apple, which I use

at home. I go to work and hold my nose as I labor all day on a

modern Microsoft platform riddled with bugs, inconsistencies, and

daily crashes. Why has such a slipshod product been allowed to

swallow the market whole? Everyone winks and looks the other way as

Gates tightens his grip. There are real, tangible costs to consumers

and corporations when they are forced to adopt `the

standard', in terms of down time that would not otherwise

occur, and inflated monopolistic pricing.

Do the right thing. Go for the throat. They are true

evil_a cancer_and deserve no quarter.

Otherwise, will we be driving Microsoft cars and buying

Microsoft diamonds as they continue to grow? Will they oustrip any

government effort to contain them?

Thanks for your time,

Lee Shouse

CC:[email protected]@inetgw

MTC-00003490

From: Leandro Guimar(FFFF)es Faria Corsetti Dutra

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 12:20pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please take a look at the fourth paragraph onwards, from http://

www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html

Leandro Guimara�7Ees Faria Corsetti Dutra +41 (21) 644 23 19

http://homepage.mac.com./leandrod/ +41 (21) 216 15 93

X Orange Telecom mailto:[email protected]

Fita AsCII contra correio electr?nico HTML BRASIL

MTC-00003491

From: dennis

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 12:33pm

[[Page 24297]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I side with the 9 states who would have Microsoft disclose the

source code for IE. This should require all versions of IE. It would

allow others to document the API without Microsoft having to

disclose the source to Windows itself. Further, having a OS only

version of Windows with no applications would give vendors a chance

to make their systems unique and tailored to the use. Thank you.

Dennis R. Newton

4032 Hidden Spring Ct.

Fort Irwin, CA 92310

MTC-00003492

From: Dan Humphries

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 12:36pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I oppose the settlement, and request a stronger one.

Dan Humphries

MTC-00003493

From: weissman family

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 12:40pm

Subject: MICROSOFT DECISION

We have been very disheartened by the Justice Dept failure to

fully protect American consumers from Microsoft. We have not read

anything which articulates our opinion better than the following:

`I was seething about Microsoft`s arrogance. Then I read

about the proposed settlement between Microsoft and the litigants in

their monopoly suit. One of the provisions was that Microsoft was

going to give a billion dollars worth of refurbished computers and

Microsoft software to some of the poorest schools in the country. At

first glance this seems altruistic, but then I started thinking

about what a billion dollars of Windoze gear dumped into the

academic market would mean to Apple, and my rage fired up again.

Here`s a company that has been convicted of illegal business

practices designed to limit competition. That competition includes

Apple, of course. So, this crook of a company suggests that to make

up for their crime, they will just make a new initiative into the

last remaining market where Apple has a dominant position. A

billion-dollar initiative into the academic market would mostly come

out of Apple`s market share and have serious implications for

Apple`s ability to maintain its lead in education!

`We`re baffled that a settlement imposed against Microsoft

for breaking the law should allow, even encourage, them to unfairly

make inroads into education_one of the few markets left where

they do not have monopoly power,' Apple`s CEO Steve Jobs said

in a statement.

Well they do make some nice software, but you really need to

have your hand on your wallet when you are dealing with the crew

from Seattle! I have a solution, though. ;) How about requiring

Microsoft to buy a whole bunch of iMacs and iBooks from

Apple_say, a billion dollars` worth_add Office v.X and

THEN give the computers to the schools.'

-Don Mayer of SmallDog.com , an apple reseller in his newletter

Kibbles&Bytes #241 Please try to address the real issues and

stay away from the politics, we have not benefitted by microsoft

monopoly.

Jocelyn & Allan Weissman

7512 Westfield Drive

Bethesda, MD 20817

MTC-00003494

From: Patrick McAvey

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 1:08pm

Subject: Microsoft must be stopped

They have destroyed almost every competitor and they are moving

into new markets. They have bought every market they own. America

should not allow this economic terrorism to continue.

Patrick McAvey

Apple Solution Expert

314-862-1312

Insanely Great Consulting

University City, MO

http://www.insanelygreat.net

[email protected]

MTC-00003495

From: Craig L. Stevenson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 1:07pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

From Robert X. Cringely

:

The proposed Microsoft settlement with the Department of Justice

has been out for several days, and there has been more than enough

ink used to say that it is a sweetheart deal for Microsoft. The DOJ

wants to get on to more important duties like confiscating nail

clippers at airports, so the deal looks good to them. But to those

of us who got our legal education from old episodes of `Law

and Order,' the deal stinks. How does it restore competition?

What does it do for those hundreds of competitors who are no longer

even in business because of Microsoft`s monopolistic tactics? Well,

those outfits_if they exist and if they can find the money to

do so_can file civil suits. But most of them won`t. I would

like to see a class action lawsuit against Microsoft.

What the settlement seems to do is prohibit Microsoft from

breaking the law IN THIS SPECIFIC WAY for a period of five years.

Imagine a murderer who shot his victims being enjoined for five

years from using a gun, but still being allowed to carry a knife. So

the best use of this space this week, given all the other pundits

who have already criticized the settlement, is for me to throw out

some ideas about why Microsoft went for it, and how their behavior

will change as a result. It is important to understand here that

Microsoft management does not feel the slightest bit of guilt. They

are, as they have explained over and over again, just trying to

survive in a brutally competitive industry, one in which they could

go from winner to loser in a heartbeat. The fact that Microsoft

makes in excess of 90 percent of the profit of the entire software

industry, well that`s just the happy result of a lot of hard work.

Pay no mind to that $36 billion they have in the bank. And since

Microsoft doesn`t feel guilty, their motivation in agreeing to this

settlement is just to get on with business. This is a very important

fact to keep in mind when trying to understand the event. This isn`t

Microsoft being caught and punished, it is Microsoft finding a path

back to business as usual, which is to say back to the very kind of

practices that got them here. Microsoft, confident in its innate

cleverness, is willing to give up certain old monopolistic behaviors

because there are new monopolistic behaviors now available to

replace them.

Microsoft has to open-up certain Windows communication APIs to

other developers, but there is no restriction at all on the addition

of new APIs. So expect a LOT of new APIs, many of which will do

nothing at all except confuse competitors. There is nothing in the

agreement that says Microsoft has to tell anyone which APIs it

really intends to use. So just like interpreted software is

obfuscated to hinder would-be copiers, expect Microsoft to obfuscate

Windows, itself.

Microsoft has to allow third-party middleware, but a glaring

loophole was left for Microsoft, simply to redefine code as not

being middleware. If they stop distributing code separately and draw

it into Windows, well as I read the proposed settlement, middleware

stops being middleware after 12 months. So if something new comes up

(all the old middleware is explicitly defined) Microsoft can

integrate it and screw the opposition one year after they stop

distributing it separately.

These loopholes are nice, but they don`t amount to the kind of

leverage Microsoft would want to have before signing away any

rights. Bill Gates would want to believe that he has a new and

completely unfettered weapon so powerful that it makes some of the

older weapons completely unnecessary. He has found that weapon in

.NET.

But hey, .NET isn`t even successful yet, right? It might be a

big flop. Wrong. Those who think there is any way that .NET won`t be

universally deployed are ignoring Microsoft`s 90 percent operating

system market share. Whether people like .NET or not, they`ll get it

as old computers are replaced with new ones. Within three years .NET

will be everywhere whether customers actually use it or not. And

that ubiquity, rather than commercial success, is what is important

to Microsoft.

Here is the deal. .NET is essentially a giant system for

tracking user behavior and, as such, will become Microsoft`s most

valuable tactical tool. It is a system for tracking use of services,

and the data from that tracking is available only to Microsoft.

.NET is an integral part of Windows` communication system with

all calls going through it. This will allow Microsoft (and only

Microsoft) to track the most frequently placed calls. If the calls

are going to a third-party software package, Microsoft will know

about it. This information is crucial. With it, Microsoft can know

which third-party products to ignore and which to destroy. With this

information, Microsoft can develop its own add-in packages and

integrate them into the .NET framework, thus eliminating the third-

party provider. A year later, as explained above, the problem is

solved.

Alternately, Microsoft could use the information (this .NET-

generated market

[[Page 24298]]

research that Microsoft gets for free and nobody else gets at all)

to change Windows to do service discovery giving an automatic

priority to Microsoft`s middleware. The advantage here is in giving

the appearance of openness without actually being open.

These possible behaviors are not in any way proscribed by the

proposed settlement with the DOJ, yet they virtually guarantee a

continuation of Microsoft`s monopoly on applications and services as

long as Microsoft has an operating system monopoly. When Microsoft

talks about `innovation,' this is what they mean.

Nothing is going to change. It is easy to criticize, but for a

change, there is actually something that you and I can do about this

problem. Under the Tunney Act, the court has to open a 60-day period

for public comment before any settlement can become final. This will

happen after the settlement is entered in the Federal Register and

will probably involve the court establishing a web site. This will

be your chance to say what you think should happen in the case (look

in the `I Like It' links for further information). My

preferred outcome is still that Microsoft be forced to sell its

language business, and the proceeds of that sale be distributed to

registered users of Microsoft products. You might think to suggest

that in your comments to the court.

Craig L. Stevenson

MTC-00003496

From: PCtech

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 1:11pm

Subject: Microsoft Antitrust

DOJ

If you look at Windows XP, it is obvious that Microsoft is

making a fool out of the Justice Department! XP is an example of how

big business can `out wait' any oversight and make money

doing it!

Windows XP has no ability to run older programs (no DOS

extensions) nor co-exist with LINUX or any other operating system.

If you want to run any Windows program using XP, all other operating

systems must go away.

I think the solution to the matter is to remove all software

that is written by a company that is held in contempt from the

Governments `buy' list. Any documents distributed

electronically should not be distributed using that companies

software. Documents should be distributed using RTF format or a GNU

format. RTF format is universally accepted and does not rely on

proprietary software to be read. The Federal Government is

encouraging Microsoft to continue it`s practices by encouraging

others to purchase Microsoft software.

Thanks and God bless

Frank Nevis

11733 Castle Court

Dublin, CA 94568-2701332

[email protected]

CC:[email protected]@inetgw

MTC-00003497

From: Tosh Cooey

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 1:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Dear Renata B. Hesse,

As an American and a Canadian I am particularly fortunate to

live in a time of great prosperity and opportunity. This has all

been brought to us by our system of democratic capitalism, which

rewards hard work and ingenuity.

Karl Marx, a great philosopher, once said (paraphrased)

`capitalism left to it`s own devices tends towards

monopoly', which like communism is the antithesis of our great

system of democratic capitalism. Microsoft has been found guilty of

having a monopoly (not a crime in itself) and abusing it`s monopoly

power. For this it should be punished, not slapped on the wrist.

Many of the proposed settlements in the case, both the DOJ and

class-actions, are inconsistent with a message of punishment. As a

resolution to the class-action suits, Microsoft proposes giving away

$1 billion of computers to schools, with an over-inflated value of

it`s software attached to this. Schools are a strong market for

competitors of Microsoft so it`s hard to see how this is a

punishment. In the DOJ case against Microsoft part of the settlement

says:

Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against

not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not

describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols

affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don`t

meet Microsoft`s criteria as a business: `... (c)

meets reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for

certifying the authenticity and viability of its business,

...'

Products like Linux and Apache are some of the fiercest

competitors to Microsoft. These products are made up of groups of

far-flung individuals, not companies or businesses. So when the

language of the settlement helps entrench Microsoft against it`s

strongest competitors, it`s hard to see how this proposed settlement

will help the competitive landscape which Microsoft has so abused in

the past.

It would be very easy to be cynical and note that Microsoft is

one of the wealthiest entities in the world, and they are just

buying their way out of punishment (some would say being punished

into a stronger market position) but most people have faith in the

political and social/economic system which sees us where we are, but

if our system can`t rectify such an obvious breach of economic order

then were does that leave us?

Please do not slap Microsoft on the wrist, competition is what

makes us great, and for the people, you and I and everyone else,

there is NO such thing as too much competition in the marketplace.

Thank-you for making this opportunity to express myself

available.

McIntosh Cooey

Twelve Hundred Group

http://www.1200group.com/

MTC-00003498

From: E. Jones

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 1:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I respectfully submit the following comments:

Please alter the section of the judgement to include not-for-

profit organizations.

1. The remedies in the Proposed Final Judgement specifically

protect companies in commerce_organizations in business for

profit. But Microsoft`s biggest competitors are Linux, an operating

system, and Apache, an integral part of the Internet. Both these

products are being produced by not-for-profit organizations. Yet

not-for-profit organizations have no rights at all under the

proposed settlement. It is as though they don`t even exist. As such

with the final judgement as proposed, Microsoft will be in a

position to destroy them.

Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against

not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not

describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols

affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don`t

meet Microsoft`s criteria as a business: `... (c)

meets reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for

certifying the authenticity and viability of its business,

...' In the days of Roosevelt and Taft, when these

laws were first being enforced, the idea that truly free products

could become a major force in any industry would have seemed insane.

Under this deal, the government is shut out, too. NASA, the

national laboratories, the military, the National Institute of

Standards and Technology_even the Department of Justice

itself_have no rights. The settlement gives Microsoft the

right to effectively kill these products. Concerning disclosure of

information regarding the APIs for incorporating non-Microsoft

`middleware.' Microsoft discloses to Independent

Software Vendors (ISVs), Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs),

Internet Access Providers (IAPs), Internet Content Providers (ICPs),

and Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) the information needed

to inter-operate with Windows at this level. Yet, when we look in

the footnotes at the legal definitions for these outfits, we find

the definitions specify commercial concerns only.

2. Regarding the three-member committee stationed at Microsoft

to make sure the DOJ deal is enforced.

Steve Satchell would be an ideal member of this committee.

Active with computers for 30+ years, Mr. Satchell knows the

technology. He has worked for several big computer companies, and

even designed and built his own operating systems. And from his

hundreds of published computer product. reviews, he also knows the

commercial side of the industry.

Respectfully submitted

Emerald Jones

Newbury Park, CA

MTC-00003499

FROM: rreno

TO: MS ATR

DATE: 12/8/01 1:41pm

SUBJECT: Microsoft Settlement

Robert L. Reno

11725 Laurelview Dr.

Cincinnati, OH 45249

February 14, 2002

Attorney General John Ashcroft

United States Department of Justice

[[Page 24299]]

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530

Dear Mr. Ashcroft,

Thank you for working to negotiate the antitrust settlement with

Microsoft. I am writing to express my support of this agreement and

appreciation for your continued efforts to finalize this case. The

general public, including many many businesses and myself, have

benefited far more from Microsoft`s substantial innovations than any

minor damage we may have suffered due to alleged errors they may

have made in trying to protect the essence of their proprietary

products and their capability to innovate.

It`s time we let them get on with the business of producing much

needed new innovations that will help our country improve

productivity and move our economy forward again. We should praise

Microsoft for the huge contribution their products have made to our

country`s productivity and encourage them to develop new more

powerful tools. It is not in our best interest for Microsoft to

expend any more of their resources on litigation, State or Federal.

If any errors in business practices were substantiated beyond all

reasonable doubt, let them know what they were, expect them to make

reasonable changes that don`t deter their capability to innovate,

and follow-up in a reasonable and appropriate manner. If such

changes may hinder innovation, our laws both Federal and State need

to be changed to avoid the potential for this result.

Please help make sure that myself and millions of other computer

users will continue to benefit from the use of Microsoft`s products

and their capability to achieve innovation.

Sincerely,

Robert L. Reno

513/489-1815

MTC-00003500

From: George Risch

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 1:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing in regards to the recent settlement proposed

between the US Government and Microsoft of Redmond, WA. As I

understand the matter, the current settlement does not include any

provisions regulation of future access to Microsoft`s API calls or

descriptions of how the internals of its operating system. This is

unfortunate, because Microsoft has been found guilty of being a

monopoly and should be required to share these specifications in a

free and open way.

In my work and the products produced at the company I work for,

not including these specifications could harm future revenue based

on our own independent work by forcing us to pay monopolistic tolls

required to gain access to these specifications. Its is much like a

system in which a train manufacture is not allowed to know the

spacing of the tracks without paying an arbitrarily set fee charge

by a monopolistic railroad. We know how to build the trains very

well, but don?t know if they will fit on the tracks.

This is especially relevant in Microsoft`s case because they can

change, at a virtual whim, a little part of its operating system

code to make all of our products inoperable.

Please consider adding that Microsoft publish its API calls and

descriptions of its OS internals in the settlement, even though it

may prolong the effort to close this matter. Thank you for your

time.

Best Regards,

George Risch

MTC-00003501

From: William Hensley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 2:15pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I am not in favor of this settlement it gives Microsoft more

power rather than less power. By letting them dictate their own

terms in this settlement. It`s not even a slap on the wrist. It

gives them a means of getting their software into the hands of the

next generation at almost no cost to Microsoft. It results in what

is nothing more than free advertising for them. their proposed value

of their software is way understated. There are some development

costs but turning out copies of software is relatively cheap. I

would be surprised to find their actual costs to be more than One

Million dollars, not even close to Five Hundred Million. Break them

up! Fine Gates 5 billion and put him in prison for a few years to

think about what he has done wrong.

William Hensley

MTC-00003502

From: jquinnella

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 2:20pm

I believe that many people are forgetting about what the

products & services of Microsoft have done for the country and

the world. Microsoft has made it much easier for all of us to lead

our lives and communicate with one another because of their business

and residential software services. (why do you think the U.S. is

such an advanced nation) The founding of Microsoft certainly did not

hurt this evolution.

Please remember....everyone loves an American

success story!!! Just like Wal-Mart.

Regards, J.R. Quincy Omaha, NE USA

MTC-00003503

From: Geoff King

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 2:21pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

I do not agree with this microsoft settlement. They were (and

still are) a monopoly that abused their power. This settlement was a

waste of time and money for all the years of hard work the US and

states have done.

I vividly remember all the troubles with netscape when IE was

first coming out. Microsoft should make operating systems, that run

theirs and other software. But they should not be allowed an unfair

advantage in controlling which software can be run and how it works,

beyond the operating system, or which formats are `standard`.

Netscape IE

Wordperfect Office

MP3,Realmedia Windows Media (WMA)

I`m sure there are others.

Just Venting,

Geoff King

ps. found this link on the redhat website.

MTC-00003504

From: Faisal Yousuf

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 2:22pm

Subject: Fairness is All I ask of you!

Hello to the employees of the Department of JUSTICE,

When I got the news that Microsoft was found to be a monopoly, I

felt such a relief. I said to myself that there is somebody with

integrity and common sense in the DOJ who believes in such things as

cunsumer protection and a free market. Then I got this horrible news

about a so called settlement with Microsoft which is a mockery of

everything that justice stands for. The guilty shuld be punished

that`s justice, plain and simple.

This so called settelment with Microsoft, lets the guilty off

with a slap on the rest and let`s him resume exactly what he has

been doing before the DOJ`s `justice' was handed down to

them.

You want to know what I consider justice: the moment that I walk

into a computer store everywhere in the US and the world to buy a

PC, and the store clerk asks me: What kind of Operating System I

want be loaded on my new PC, or whether I want it to be blank so

that I can take it home and load whatever I want on it? At that

precise moment, the DOJ whould have fulfilled justice. Anything

else, is farce.

Faisal M Yousuf

Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

MTC-00003505

From: Joshua E Reeder

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 2:30pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am aware that the proposed settlement gives Microsoft a lot of

power with regard to releasing API`s, etc. to freeware and open

source groups. This is incredibly counter-productive, as the only

group that has as much development support as Microsoft is the

aforementioned open-source movement.

Specifically, I am referring to: Section III(J)(2) Section

III(D)

Thank you for your time.

Josh

MTC-00003506

From: Austin Myers

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 2:32pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I am submitting the following for

consideration:

I do not claim to be a judicial wizard or that I understand all

the requirements of submitting a letter like this. However, it is my

hope the courts forgive my ignorance in this area and allow me to

express my views and accept them in the good faith I offer them.

To provide the quick answer, let me say I approve of the

proposed settlement between the DoJ, the approving State Attorney

Generals, and Microsoft Corporation. With

[[Page 24300]]

that said I would like to express my reasoning behind this:

Microsoft has been found guilty of specific violations of the

law and as such should face the consequences of their acts. However,

I believe any ?punishment? should fit the ?crime?, and I believe the

proposed remedies do this very nicely.

If I understand all that I have read on the subject, Microsoft`s

biggest problem is in how they conducted business with OEMs.

(Original Equipment Manufactures) It would make sense that this is

the area of behavior that should be addressed, restricted, and

monitored. While a small minority of people would like to see

additional restrictions and/or restructuring of Microsoft, I believe

doing so would not be in the best interest of the average consumer.

I have worked with PC users on a daily basis for about 20 years

and have had one point driven home time after time. ?The key to

consumer satisfaction is making the PC simple to use.? The concept

that breaking the Windows Operating System in to multiple components

will somehow make the PC easier to use is just plain wrong. In my

experience, users want a PC they can set-up, turn on, and

immediately be productive with.

Another consideration for the average user is one of support. As

I said, I make a living helping people with their PCs. With

Microsoft Windows I have a `known' basis to work from. I

can count on a number of things being in place and I know their

structure. This allows me to quickly resolve any problems the user

may have. If I, as a support person, am required to learn and deal

with what could be hundreds of possible configurations, I would have

no choice but to increase the price of my services, and in all

likelihood, spend considerable more time resolving the user`s

problems. This will obviously be reflected in the users cost of

ownership.

It is unfortunate that the DoJ and the courts have been placed

into the current situation, but the reality is that it was

necessary. With that said, my feelings on the matter are that the

government must show extreme caution to go no further than is

absolutely necessary. The PC industry is still in its infancy and

market forces are just beginning to shape it. The Linux Operating

System is becoming more and more popular, large corporations other

than Microsoft are developing standards for the Internet, and there

is serious competition in just about every conceivable area of PC

use.

I pray the court consider the users of PCs and not just

Microsoft`s competitor`s complaints. Regardless of which company or

corporation ?wins? the race to market share, ultimately it is the

user`s needs that must be met. And it is for these users`s I ask

that the current proposed settlement be accepted and enforced.

Sincerely,

Austin Myers

RR 1 Box ?63?

Denver, Mo.

MTC-00003507

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 2:34pm

Subject: Comment

WHY DON`T YOU GUYS, AND THE STATES, GET OFF YOUR PATHETIC

PURSUIT OF THIS COMPANY?

SURELY YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE MORE PRODUCTIVE TO DO.

I, LIKE MANY OTHERS I INTERFACE WITH, ARE VERY MUCH FED UP WITH

YOUR ATTITUDES TOWARD AN AMERICAN ICON AND SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS. SURE

IS NOT TEACHING OUR YOUNGER GENERATION ANY POSITIVE BUSINESS IDEAS.

I WOULD SUGGEST STOP MAKING DECISIONS FOR PEOPLE THAT MAY OR MAY NOT

EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT A COMPUTER OR NIC CARD IS AND TELL THEM TO GO

ABOUT THEIR BUSINESS, WHILE YOU GO ON TO SOMETHING ELSE.

GET A LIFE, GET OFF MICROSOFT!

Ron Raney

MTC-00003508

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 2:43pm

Subject: ANOTHER COMMENT

AS FAR AS ALL THE CRITICS LINING UP TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE

CURRENT SETTLEMENT, DON`T YOU THINK THEY ARE USING THIS AS A WAY TO

IMPLEMENT THEIR OWN TYPE OF MONOPOLY, JUST BECAUSE THEIR PRODUCTS

ARE INFERIOR TO MICROSOFT`S?

WHEN CEO`s STOOP SO LOW AS TO USE CRUMBS TO GET THE LAW ON THEIR

SIDE, IT IS TIME TO HANG UP THE LEGAL HAT! THEY TOO SHOULD BE TOLD

TO GO HOME AND QUIT WHINING!!!! THEY SHOULD CREATE A BETTER, OR MORE

PRODUCTIVE PRODUCT AND THEY TOO WILL SUCCEED.

KEEP THE COMPETITION THE WAY IT IS WITH MICROSOFT LEADING THE

PACK. WE WILL ALL BE BETTER OFF IN THE FUTURE!

Ron Raney

MTC-00003509

From: Chuck Hill

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 3:11pm

Subject: Opinion on Microsoft anti-trust settlement

I am writing you to express my opinion on the recent DOJ

settlement with Microsoft on the antitrust trial.

I short, I strongly feel that the agreement does not go far

enough in punishing Microsoft for their anti-competitive practices,

nor limits them in the future in following these practices.

Microsoft`s present behavior belies what is ahead for the computer

industry under a weak agreement:

_Microsoft continues to leverage its advantage over

competitors by not including Java in its release of the latest

Internet Explorer shipped with Windows XP. Likewise, Microsoft

bundles their Media player, while shutting out RealAudio`s player

(similar to the practices earlier of bundling Internet Explorer with

Windows, but not Netscape).

_Microsoft is effectively pressuring corporate customers

to perform upgrades and purchase subscriptions and support under a

deadline. After the deadline, new plans and prices will go into

effect, although it is vague as to what those conditions will be.

_Microsoft has declared war on open source software, such

as the Linux operating system, calling it un-American. There is even

concern in the open-source community that Microsoft may start trying

to limit the growth of open source software through software patents

and other legal mechanisms.

_Some of Microsoft`s licensing agreements go so far as to

limit free speech, compelling the customer not to make remarks that

derogatory or critical of Microsoft.

_The agreement to view Microsoft source code, under the

control and watchful eyes of Microsoft, is a minimal concession and

provides little or no advantage to vendors in developing software to

run on Microsoft platforms. The fact is that Microsoft product teams

will have FULL access to source code, as well as being privy to

future enhancements to their operating system. I doubt they will

give the same access to competitors.

_Microsoft continues to branch out into new markets and

initiatives, including PDA`s, Web services, game systems, set-top

boxes. In typical Microsoft fashion, these systems are closed

source, compete with industry standards, and don`t interoperate well

with other systems. The one main exception is Microsoft`s embracing

XML with their .NET initiative, but even .NET is a closed system.

_Microsoft`s latest version of Windows, XP, practically

forces the customer to register with Passport, an on-line

identification service, providing personal information that will

reside on Microsoft servers. Microsoft will own this data, along

with the temptation to sell or otherwise abuse this privilege. Of

course, this is in direct competition with other similar, more open

mechanisms of storing user identities.

_Even with the current agreement, Microsoft does not admit

to their guilt, and does not acknowledge its monopoly status, even

though this is the ruling.

These are just a few examples that come to mind. I`ve read many

more in the industry press.

Under normal circumstances, where there are several players in

the market, Microsoft has every right to compete in a vigorous

manner. But these are not normal circumstances. Microsoft is one of

the largest corporations in the world, and the largest software

vendor. Microsoft holds over 90% of the desktop computer market.

Microsoft Office products have such a high penetration in the

corporate market that Microsoft Word and Outlook are the defacto

word processing and email programs of corporate America.

When Microsoft says jump, these customers have little recourse

but to say `How high?'.

This situation is not unlike 20 years ago, when IBM held

dominance over the mainframe computer industry. It was not until

they were pressured by the DOJ, and the PC came along, that

competition opened up and we started a long technology boom, which

led to more innovation, including the Internet.

[[Page 24301]]

Prior to this, we had closed, proprietary systems which did not

interconnect well. If IBM had maintained its hegemony over systems

and networking, it is doubtful that we would have seen anything like

the Internet. I see the same situation with Microsoft`s dominance of

the desktop_as long as their code and data formats are secret,

and they dominate the marketplace, it will be difficult for

innovators to come up with the next `Internet.'

To give you additional perspective on where I`m coming from, I`m

writing this email on a Windows 98 system, using Microsoft Outlook.

I typically use Microsoft products for my email, word processing

(Word), financial planning (Excel and Money). They are fine

products. However, I also use Linux, Netscape, StarOffice, Java and

other systems and applications. I have no problem with using

Microsoft products. But I do have a problem where one vendor has

such dominance in so many areas of computing as to stifle innovation

that a truly competitive marketplace would bring. Microsoft claims

to be a champion of innovation, yet oppose it in the open-source

community and quash it from their competitors.

Personally, I feel the `remedies' do not go far

enough in leveling the playing field, and Microsoft has been given

carte blanche to continue in their arrogant, aggressive fashion. We

will see Microsoft in court in the future, I fear. But what I fear

more are the ideas and innovative products that will be stifled or

never see the light of day until that next day in court arrives.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Hill

President

Hill Systems Consulting, Inc.

7208 Fairford Place

Tampa, FL 33634

MTC-00003510

From: Rodman Brett

To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]...

Date: 12/8/01 3:17pm

Subject: MicroSoft, Monopolies, and a Metaphor December 6, 2001

From: Brett A. Rodman

Diogenes Unlimited Political Consulting temp address

102 Reid Road

West Columbia, TX 77486

To: The Honorable Jim Miller

The Attorney General of Iowa

Subj: Microsoft, Monoplies, and a Metaphor

cc: The Securities and Exchange Commission

Attorneys` General CA, DC, MA, CT, FL, IA, KS, MN, UT, WV

The Securities and Exchange Commission

The European Union

Mr. Miller,

I would like to comend your state on its decision to continue

with the anti-trust case against MicroSoft. It is unfortunate, but

as it stands Mr. Gates has been able to amass the great amount of

wealth that he has, and keep this wealth as a result of the judicial

community`s, and the public`s widespread ignorance concerning

computers, and the internet, and more than this, how it is that laws

governing the contracts, public welfare, and commerce of day to day

business apply on the internet.

I have done extensive studies in this area over the last year,

most specifically how Bill of Rights protections, most specifically

how political and speech rights apply on the internet. This being

the case, I would like to take a crack at providing a metaphor for

how Mr. Gate`s Monopoly over the `Air Space' in Cyber-

World is detrimental to the general welfare of the public. The

Internet is a Super Highway. Like any other road, it is the back-

bone and life blood of commerce, industry, and free enterprise. This

is much the same as the Rail System in America was in the 19th

Century and the Highways projects of The New Deal were in the early

twentieth Century.

The MicroSoft Corporation, and Bill Gates, have in fact made it

so that to even get on the highway of commerce you have to pay them.

Most who are not astute as to computers do not understand this. In

fact as it currently stands, it is nearly impossible to find a

computer system, or operating server that is accessible for public,

and or private computers, without having to access and utilize the

Windows Operating System.

Mr. Gates` defense is that you should not penalize success. That

invented this system for the most part and therefore I am justified

in establishing an operating monopoly because of this. Well then, I

suppose that the person who invented concrete should be given money

everytime a new road is paved, a bridge built, or driveway poured.

In fact, as this metaphor applies to the Super-Highway of

Commerce, imagine this. Imagine that the company that invented

concrete was allowed to take fees for everytime you used the road-

ways. So the person that invented concrete setup a toll-booth at the

end of every American driveway, established and erected by the

government so that they could get some tax money. Every time you

wanted to pull your car out of the driveway, you had to pay a toll

to the man who invented concrete and the government toll booth tax

collectors.

Well eventually, one car owner became mad about this and sued.

And said that the man that invented concrete, and the government

toll collectors could not do this, that it was a monopoly of the

roads and a violation of their rights. Unfortunately, because people

liked driving their cars on the roads, the man who had invented

concrete had become the richest man in the world. He was able to buy

and sell the justice system for the greatest part, make backroom

political deals, and have political campaigns bought and sold so

that he would be able to keep hold of this profitable monopoly. So

instead of breaking up the monopoly, the government made a deal with

the company that made the toll booths at the end of driveways (The

Sun Microsystems Java systems) that they would split the money from

the monopoly with each other, and that in effect would serve as

justice.

Then the man who invented concrete, and the toll booth makers,

now happy with themselves, went and promised to pay all of the legal

fees of the people who did not like the deal, and offered more

inducements to get anyone else to drop the matter entirely.

This was because the man who invented concrete understood that

it was better to have to share all of the monopoly money with one

other person, than allow the government to engage in a takings act

of the patent for the common welfare, with due compensation being

given to the concrete maker under the IV Amendment.

I do hope that you understand the metaphor, and will use it in

calling other Attorney`s General around the United States of America

to convince them that in fact, the metaphor above is most certainly

what the Microsoft Monoply case represents, and is a violation of

the Wagner and Sherman Anti-Trust Acts.

I look forward to hearing from you concerning this matter.

Very Truly Yours, I am,

Brett A. Rodman

Subject: MicroSoft and Movie Studio Investments

To: brandan.sullivan@ williamsandconnolly.com,

[email protected], [email protected],

[email protected], [email protected],

[email protected], [email protected],

[email protected],

[email protected],

[email protected], [email protected],

attorney.general@ppo. state.ct.us, [email protected],

[email protected], [email protected],

[email protected], [email protected],

[email protected], [email protected]

From: Rodman Brett

Date: 20 Nov 2001 12:06:51 PST

November 20, 2001

From: Brett Anthony Rodman

Diogenes Unlimited

Political Consulting

temp address

1009 11th Street NW

Washington, DC 20001

832-496-1925

To: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 450 Fifth Street

Washington, DC 20549

202-942-7040

Subj: MicroSoft and Movie Studio Investments

Ref: (a) Ltr to Brett A. Rodman dtd February 18, 2000 from the SC

Department of Commerce

cc: The South Carolina Legislature

The Federal Bureau of Investigation

The Film Office of South Carolina

The SC Economic Development Authority

The South Carolina Department of Commerce

The Apple Corporation

The MicroSoft Defense Site

The Department of Justice Anti-Trust Division

Offices of the Attorney General SC, CA, CT, FL, IA, KS, MA, MN, UT,

WV

International Anti-Trust Agencies

Brendan Sullivan, Attorney at Law, Williams & Connoly

The College of Charleston

[[Page 24302]]

EC,

My name is Brett Anthony Rodman, I run a small political and

legal consulting entrepreneurial enterprise. I am interested in the

MicroSoft Case, but have little time to research the issue right

now.

However, I have a `hunch' that I was hoping your

agency and the cc: line addresses might be interested in undertaking

duedilligence concerning its validity. For, if it is true it speaks

to the business practices of MicroSoft, not only in the area of

Information Technology, but its investments in other areas of the

economy. It concerns the `intellectual property rights'

to offer an IPO, and garner `venture capital' for the

Construction of a Movie Studio in the State of South Carolina.

In February of 2000, I authored, and delivered a hand-written

copy of a 30-year Economic Redevelopment plan for the State of South

Carolina. The State of South Carolina acknowledged receipt of this

plan, which included the construction of a `movie

studio' with Reference (a). I contend for the record, that my

former employeers, Practical Holdings Limited of 206 Sak`s Fifth

Avenue Building, and Zebo`s Restaraunt and Brewery of 275 King

Street Charleston, SC did conspire, to defraud me of the rights to

this `intellectual property' through threats,

intimidation, bribery, and eventually a `murder attempt'

in front of St. Louis Cathedral in New Orleans, LA resulting

thereof, for their own pecuniary, fiduciary, and economic benefit. I

originally made this contention, and my desire to see the matter

investigated to the United States Secret Service Field Office and

Special Agent Kenny. At the time of the Field Interview, Special

Agent Kenny mentioned that he did not feel that the American

Government could investigate pertinent to 10th and 11th Amendment

concerns. The same behavior that was exhibited in Charleston, SC,

has now continued through three other state jurisdictions. The

States of Texas, Missouri, Louisiana, and even to a lesser degree

the District of Columbia. Throughout the breadth of this three year

hate crime, and I would contend human rights abuse I have kept the

Federal Bureau of Investigation through e-mail, and the United

States Secret Service through e-mail and interviews, updated on the

progress of these individuals and their criminal behavior.

Unfortuantely, the coconspirators at Zebo`s Restaraunt and Brewery

have extensive connections throught the nation`s capital and getting

any type of investigation initiated has been difficult. You can

contact the Ned Twining, formerly one of the largest shareholders of

Exxon Oil for details on the behavior of his investment at Zebo`s

Restaraunt and Brewery.

This brings me to the possible involvment of the MicorSoft

Corporation. As everyone in the financial world is well aware, all

corporations have people on the street, as information represents

money. Microsoft obviously, as they have more money have more people

on the street. I contend for the record that the Co-conspirators to

defraud me of my property did in fact approach the Microsoft

Corporation for Deveolpment money to investigate the possiblity of

the construction of a movie studio in South Carolina.

In fact, I contend for the record, that my employment by Debra

Rosen, Tony Stroupe, and Mark Barhyte at Practical Holdings Limited,

and Zebo`s Restaraunt and Brewery was nothing more than a

duedilligence effort to gather enough information to be able to

commit identity fraud, so as to garner investment capital from

sources banking in the Bank of Japan Monetary System. I have made

this contention, and sent documentation to the Embassy of Japan, and

the Consulate of Japan in Houston to enummerate these concerns.

Moreover, Practical Holdings Limited was working on a

Interactive Museum Project with the Gates Foundation in Charleston,

SC. I contend that this is the point in time where, `money to

be put on the street' was garnered as, `investigative

capital' or plans `formulation money. This money was

then used to intimidate, bribe, buy off justice officials and police

officers, and eventually have me stabbed in the streets of New

Orleans. I feel that if the MicroSoft Corporation offered money for

this project, or funneled money to his people in the street, through

quasi-jobs (i.e. payments for doing nothing), Mr. Gates was aware of

what the money was being utilized for, approved of this, and in fact

established a high tech concentration camp, a hate-crime, and a

human rights abuse for his own amusement. Of course assuming that

he, as the richest man in the world could just buy the problem away

later.

I do sincerely hope that you will look into this matter, and

contact the aforementioned individuals. As it is my contention that

if Mr. Gates was involved he is subject to the provisions of USC

Title 18 Section 96, and forfeitures contained therein, to the

Treasury Department of the United States of America.

The international community and economic police agencies can

contact any foreign students who attended the College of Charleston

from 1997 to 2000, to ask them what they might know about any of

this. A good place to start with any duedilligence would be 139

Calhoun Street, the Trio Club.

In earnest, I am,

Brett A. Rodman

By the way, one other person you can contact is Professor

Bjerken of the College of Charleston Philosophy Department. I took a

Chinese and Japanese Religions Class from him. There was a girl (red

head) named Katy who sat next to me in class. One day she walked by

me, and condescendingly muttered under her breath at me,

`you`re taking on Microsoft'.

Apparently, MicroSoft has purchased the American Government and

Legal System.

MTC-00003511

From: Ryan Esty

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 3:19pm

Subject: remedies for Microsoft

Lots of people in the open source community say that if the goal

of the MS vs DOJ is to increase competition and give people more

choices then there are two things that need to happen. One of the

things is to force Microsoft to document and open their file

formats, communication apis, and windows apis. With out these apis

and file formats open then everyone that tries to write something to

be compatible with microsoft windows or microsoft applications the

programmer(s) will always have to guess and might be locked out if

Microsoft changes the apis. The other thing that needs to change is

ammending the DMCA so it is legal to reverse engineer such

protocols. Without this then it doesn't matter what

restrictions are put on microsoft, they will just use this law to

sue everyone into oblivian much like the mpaa is doing to people

with decss.

I hope this helps

Ryan Esty

CC:[email protected]@inetgw

MTC-00003512

From: Michael Bishop

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 3:20pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

I am very concerned about the settlement the government is

offering to Microsoft. I see many loopholes in it and I would like

to see it changed.

Many of the loopholes that I am deeply concerned about are

discussed in Robert X Cringley`s column which is available here:

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html

_michael

MTC-00003513

From: Portland, Oregon TCF

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 3:35pm

Subject: What a farce!

After all the hope you created by going after Micro$oft you sure

wimped out with this `settlement'. You might as well

have told Little Billy to continue as planned. I really like the

option provided by Red Hat. Let Bill fund the hardware and allow

open source software to be used!

John Bruce, Webmaster

Portland Oregon Chapter

The Compassionate Friends

[email protected]

www.portlandtcf.org

MTC-00003514

From: Mark Compton

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 4:02pm

Subject: Punish don`t reward Microsoft

Microsoft should be split into 4 corporations.

(1) Business suite and productivity software.

(2) Network Operating Systems and Operating Systems.

(3) Internet Software.

(4) Programming Software.

Nothing less will end their monopoly and outright arrogance. Is

the government afraid of Bill Gates?

Mark Compton

MTC-00003515

From: David McCabe

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 4:03pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Greetings,

It would appear that the proposed Microsoft settlement gives no

rights whatsoever to non-profit entities (see section

[[Page 24303]]

III(J)(2), section III(D)). This is a problem, because Microsoft`s

greatest competitor is not a for-profit organization. It`s free

software. There is much in this market which Microsoft has in the

past and can in the future hurt or even kill, which the settlement

provides no protection for.

David McCabe

`'finger [email protected]' for PGP

key.

Wrfhf ybirf lbh!

MTC-00003516

From: Dan Dickerman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 4:09pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am writing in response to the request for public comment on

the recent Microsoft anti-trust settlement, to express my

disapproval of one of the aspects of the proposed settlement. Though

this issue has been raised by other groups before, I am also

proposing a possible compromise of this settlement which would be

more generally acceptable.

Specifically, the portion of the settlement by which Microsoft

will donate computers and software to educational institutions is a

minor cost to MS, while allowing them to essentially advertise their

own products to thousands of schoolkids and educators. This allows

them advertising space, and gets their foot-in-the-door of the

education market, a longstanding stronghold of their OS competitor

Apple Computer, and a growing stronghold with Linux, under the guise

of actually penalising Microsoft in some way.

I would suggest that if Microsoft were sincere in their will to

better the educational system through computer hardware and software

donations, they should not be allowed to present their own products

as a way to fulfill that donation. Such a donation sould only be

considered a sincere and worthy part of a settlement if Microsoft

were to pay the costs of donating strictly non-Microsoft products,

such as those which run Linux and MacOS, and with a prohibition that

these computers not be allowed to run MS software or for the

Microsoft name or logo to appear anywhere on these products.

Further, for any such donation to be of true use to a school,

there will be a need for ongoing computer support, configuration and

training. Again, such services should be paid for my Microsoft, but

should be provided by non-MS service companies which are known for

their strengths in promoting and servicing these non-Microsoft

products, so as to prevent MS from evangelizing its own products in

this environment.

Dan Dickerman

Mountain View, CA

MTC-00003517

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 4:09pm

Subject: Settlement...

Dear Sir`s:

I`ve read a lot of encouraging news about DOJ investigations,

considerations and upcoming legislation against Microsoft. Now I`m

sad to say that the effort seems to result in a very watered-down

result, mostly due to lack of congruen on your side.

The simple truth is that in this world of technological reserch

and landwinning discoveries, we just can`t let a single company

dominate, infiltrate and parasite on the economical strength of the

western world and further enhance the vast differences between the

poor and educationally challenged countries and the rest. (Let alone

the impact of rapid-changing interface paradigms on individuals.)

If we proceed along this path, we are sooner or later faced with

a effort of retraining millions of coworkers on the every-other-year

product/training/certification release whim of one company. An

effort from which no-one but said company will benefit and that it

certainly will result in a hampering of free market competition due

to sheer need of competence control and turnover. Furthermore, this

effort will provide no actual enhanced technical skills, since the

base of MS operations is to repackage open and available technology

in a acceleratingly more complex form, thus seldom providing any

real operational value.

Regards:

Goran Ekeberg

MTC-00003518

From: Dan Alustiza At The Hat/Cap Exchange

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 4:21pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The odds of this being read, are slim at best, but this is one

thing that requires attention. First I would like to state that this

suit should never have been permitted. I have been a software

developer for 18 years now, and I remember back to the days before

Microsoft. Microsoft brought control to a profession that was

totally out of control. Everyone had their own set of standards,

which made it next to impossible to build any type of software

application, in any timely manner. All that Microsoft has done, is

act like any other healthy company in this country has. Companies

such as Oracle and Sun, are examples of companies that cannot keep

up with Microsoft, so what have they done, gone and cried to the

Government. This is no different than little children crying to the

teacher, because big Johnny did not give Teddy a piece of the pie.

The proposed settlement, although costly to institute, would

enable companies like Oracle to watch over Microsoft`s practices,

without hindering the growth of the software industry. The

settlement would also permit the hardware manufacturers the freedom

they should have to install any operating system, and software

applications, that they so choose. This is one area which I did

think Microsoft was out of control. They should never have been

permitted to force the hardware companies to install the Microsoft

products. In saying that, I also think the hardware companies CEO`s

should have had the guts to stand up to Microsoft, on this matter. A

lawsuit was not needed to fix this problem.

In closing, when this lawsuit was filed, and brought to court,

that started the recession, that this country, is currently in. The

stock market started faltering within a couple of weeks, of the

court proceedings, and the tech arena started to fail. People, and

companies started to loose money, and the trickle down effect went

into full force. As usual, the government placed their hands into an

area they knew nothing about, and screwed it up. Settle this suit

now!

Dan Alustiza

MTC-00003519

From: lesjmc

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 4:37pm

Subject: SETTLEMENT

I as a citizen feel that the settlement should be accepted by

all parties invoved. Due to Microsoft in the past, they broke the

financial barrier of companies like IBM to where it made it

financially affordable for the common citizen or person to be able

to own a PC in their home. The price of their software is very

competitive with everybody else.

If we are going to make Microsoft make available software to

everybody else who wants to attach it to windows or bundle with it,

then why do we not, for example, make it mandatory for the auto

industy to let it be available to have a Chevy engine as a option in

your Ford, or vise versa or a Ford stereo system installed by Chevy,

in your Chevy.

All we got here is some state attorneys who are just trying to

make a name for their themselves for their own personnel gain. They

do not have the public interest at heart.

Les McCann

MTC-00003520

From: Gary Cable

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 5:02pm

Subject: DOJ Microsoft settlement

To whom it may concern,

Extreme disappointment doesn`t even begin to describe my

feelings about the, so called, settlement with Microsoft concerning

the anti-trust case. In my view, it wasn`t a settlement, it was a

`GET OUT OF JAIL FREE' pass. You can bet that Microsoft

will continue the same business practices that brought the lawsuit

to start with, only I fear it will become worse than ever. I`m not

certain a breakup of Microsoft was the answer, but some sort of

significant and substantial penalty was certainly in order.

Some day this lawsuit will have to be repeated and maybe next

time Microsoft will actually pay for its sins. I do wonder if

someone in the DOJ is a little richer.....MS was found to be a

monopoly and went free. Hmmmm. At least MS will not get any more of

my $$$.

Regards,

A very disappointed and dis-believing tax payer.

Gary Cable

[email protected]

MTC-00003521

From: Romica Johnson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 5:11pm

Subject: microsoft

Microsoft never intended to hurt its competition.

MTC-00003522

From: donald bisbee

[[Page 24304]]

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 5:15pm

Subject: `Microsoft'

PLEASE DON`T THROW ME INTO THE BRIAR PATCH says Microsoft, and

so what do you do? Throw them in the briar patch!!!

When I buy Microsoft`s junky programs I am forced to beg them to

use it via secret number I need to beg them for.

CAN YOU IMAGINE A SETTLEMENT MORE FOOLISH THAN FORCING MICROSOFT

TO ADVERTISE TO SCHOOLKIDS OF ITS MONOPOLY???? YOU CAN HAVE ANYTHING

YOU WANT AS LONG AS IT IS MICROSOFT!

Years ago Xerox was forced to sell machines not just rent them

along with the phone company , and Kodak had to stop forcing

developing sales with its film. But Microsoft now gets free

advertising and boosts to its stranglehold monopoly on

`operating systems'!

MTC-00003523

From: Dave Doucette

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 5:24pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement with the Justice Department

To whom is may concern.

I would like to express my concern regarding the settlement

between Microsoft and the Justice Department on a few points. They

are:

_The current settlement does not require Microsoft to provide

access to their technology to the Open Source Forum, and restricts

access to companies. This is very short-sighted since much of the

alternate-Microsoft solutions are being developed in Open Source.

Without access to the Microsoft technology, it will restrict

alternate, competitive solutions.

_Microsoft HAS stifled innovation in the industry. I can

assure you from my own personal experiences that very little

innovation directed at the desktop can get venture funding over the

past five years. The threat is that Microsoft will simply copy the

technology and walk away with the business, just like what they did

with Netscape and browsers.

_Personally, I feel that the proposals from the states in

requiring Microsoft to deliver office on other platforms (including

Linux) and delivering a `core' version of their

Operating System makes incredible sense. As you are looking into who

will sit on the three member committee to review Microsoft, I would

like to submit myself as a candidate. I`ve been in involved in

computer technology since 1979. My background includes Hardware,

software, OS and Networking. I am nearing completion of my MBA at

Clark University this spring, and I am currently a freelance

Business and Marketing Consultant. I do feel it is important for a

company to develop and build an environment for the delivery of

software and technology for the masses, but it is critical that this

environment is used to nurture innovation, not stifle it. I am

including a copy of my resume for your reference. References are

available on request.

Dave Doucette Home:

[email protected]

MTC-00003524

From: Peter Yellman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 5:26pm

Subject: DOJ/MS settlement is flawed

Hon. Judge Kotar-Kelly:

I been closely following the government`s efforts to reign in

Microsoft`s illegal and anticompetitive behavior since 1995. I have

also been a careful student of Microsoft`s misbehavior since I

gradually came to the conclusion between about 1995-1997 that

Microsoft was stifling the advance of the computer/software industry

(as well as being an incorrigible lawbreaker, which is fascially

evident) with nearly certain negative long-term effects for our

nation`s economy, despite the fact that I made my living at that

time as a computer technician servicing Microsoft windows-based

computers and software. I have been personal witness to outright

lies perpetuated by Microsoft`s top executives (Steve Ballmer).

The settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust trial, as proposed by

Microsoft and the Department of Justice, will do very little to curb

the illegal behavior that has become the hallmark of that

corporation, and equally little to deter Microsoft from using its

monopoly in operating systems to extend its market dominance to

other markets and product areas. On the other hand, the remedies

recently proposed by the 9 dissenting states and the District of

Columbia encapsulate exactly what needs to be done to reinvigorate

the industry and once again make it a source of interesting and

exciting professions. Frankly, I am pleasantly surprised and

profoundly impressed with the group who put together that plan, as

it addresses key issues which I previously (from other government

prosecutions of Microsoft) concluded public/government officials

were unable to grasp, or unwilling to address_for example, the

fairness of requiring Microsoft to open source the Internet Explorer

web browser which it has imposed on the public through a wide

variety of illegal means and which has now become a defacto

standard. In addition to preventing Microsoft from unfairly using

Internet Explorer as a wedge into new product and service markets

and penalizing competitors, forcing the company to open source that

product will undoubtedly be just the `gentle nudge' it

needs to draw the line of separation between that product and the

operating system, a relatively trivial technical task that it has

repeatedly refused to undertake and which has been the subject of so

much `debate'.

Finally, I have to note that there is a cloud of suspicion over

the DOJ`s proposed settlement arising from the massive contributions

made by Microsoft to the Bush campaign during the most recent

presidential campaign, especially when tied to the apparent refusal

of career attourneys at the DOJ to put their names on the deal and

the unprecedented private audience granted to top Microsoft

executives shortly after President Bush took office. It is hard not

to be cynical at the breathtaking about face we have witnessed at

the Department of Justice under the new administration and the use

of the terrorist attacks of September 11 to provide political cover

for these actions. Please do the right thing, Judge Kotar-Kelly.

Peter Yellman

Herndon, VA

[email protected]

MTC-00003525

From: K.P. CLARK

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 6:27pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

In regard to Microsoft:

For five years now I have determined each year to buy a laptop

computer. However, every time I come close to buying one, we get

down to what software to include. On my desktop I have the Windows

Operating System and Microsoft Office Professional, which includes

programs which I seldom or never use. I am a teacher and a writer,

and want the laptop to carry back and forth to the college. What I

need on it is the Windows operating system and Microsoft Word. That

is all. Can I buy just that? No. I have to buy an entire set of

programs that I don`t need and won`t use. This is annoying, to say

the least. Plus there is a program related to a subject I teach that

I would like to load onto the computer, but other professors who

have tried, tell me it is not compatible with the Microsoft

operating system and has messed up their system, so I won`t buy that

program either. I hear my students complain similarly.

I have determined to forego the laptop so long as this problem

exists. Do I have lots of choices? No. I could go with a Mac_a

nice system_except for the problem of transferring data to my

desktop. I could go with a Linux operating system but understand

that is difficult to learn to use. So I will continue to use my old

desk top and the computer at school until_ and unless_I

have a more viable choice than paying money for a bunch of programs

I don`t want. At least I have that those options. I hear that

Microsoft only affects its competitors and not the consumer. I don`t

understand how anyone can say this. I am a very small computer user,

and if it affects me at my level, it must affect many others.

Katherine Clark

MTC-00003526

From: Gary Palmer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 5:37pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Renata B. Hesse or whom it may concern,

I want to register my concern and object to the proposed

Microsoft settlement agreement.

I feel the agreement unfairly excludes from protection non-

profit organizations. The internet is comprised of many not-for-

profit companies that are producing product often seen as the major

competition to Microsoft and the current wording would allow

Microsoft to exclude these products from any form of interoperation.

I am refering to many products that include Linux, Perl, Apache,

Samba and more.

Thank you,

Gary Palmer

[email protected]

[[Page 24305]]

MTC-00003527

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 5:45pm

Subject: States vs. Microsoft

Put me on record in favor of Microsoft. Do not punish Microsoft

for being sucessful in a competitive software industry.

Sincerely,

Karl Schultze

Waukesha WI 53188

MTC-00003528

From: vasu muppalla

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 5:58pm

Subject: DOJ settlement with microsoft

I am a software developer of over a dozen years. During the

course of these years, I have seen Microsoft`s anti-competitive,

unethical and even illegal behaviour again and again. While the DOJ

watched, hundreds of companies and enterprenuers have been robbed of

success in business or been rendered out of the market by

Microsoft`s practices. The DOJ has done precious little except

propose conduct remedies time and again, which Microsoft blatantly

violated. This so called `settlement` is again in the nature of a

conduct remedy and thus absolutely useless. Microsoft has profited

at the destruction of many of its competitors and today has a huge

cash surplus of $30b; much of it should be spread over its numerous

competitors. What is the DOJ doing to punish Microsoft for its past

deeds?

When a person kills another person, he can receive the death

penalty but when Microsoft has destroyed numerous companies, why

should it not be destroyed? Also, why are the individuals of an

organization that broke the law again and again and again, showing

utter contempt for law, being completely exempt for their actions?

Here are my proposals:

(1) Fine microsoft to the tune of at LEAST $10b to fund open-

source projects.

(2) Make microsoft develop filters for competing office products

such as star office and koffice.

(3) As an alternative to `1', punish all Microsoft

executives in the past 10 years with severe cash penalties and

`contempt of court` remedies incl jail time for not complying with

court decrees.

(4) Make OEMs not install windows by default. Customers must

specifically ASK for windows and the cost of that should be

separately calculated.

(5) Item `4' shall apply to ALL software, Microsoft

or not. No software will be bundled with computers except those sold

to businesses.

(6) Microsoft shall NOT have any contracts to make windows

source available to other software companies. They can license

windows source WITHOUT being forced to reveal their own source code.

This practice in the past enabled Microsoft to copy source code from

Real networks, Sybase and many others and sell it as its own!

MTC-00003529

From: Donna (038) Bruno

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 6:13pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think this case should be settled promptly as it has no merit

at all. The cost of windows software is very reasonable to persons

like me. Before Microsoft the computer was next to useless. They

made the computer easy to use for most people, even at $1000.00

Windows would be a bargin to me. As far as anti-trust and price

fixing, one only has to drive down Main Street USA and observe the

price of gas. Note how the price changes up and down all at the same

time. If you want more examples, how about your electric and natural

gas utilities. To sum it up there are a lot of others that are more

guilty tham Microsoft.

MTC-00003530

From: David Bergman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 6:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please make sure that Open Source projects COULD use Microsoft

calls! Read the following page:

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html

MTC-00003531

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 6:27pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The Microsoft settlement is heavily weighed to the side of

bitter rivals that will rage under any circumstances. To subject

Microsoft to their bitter rivals` wishes means compromising security

to those of us that choose Microsoft. The bitter companies and the

way they want this situation dealt with not only serves to punish

Microsoft but those that love America and what she stands for and

whom she should justly reward (the achievers, not the

underachievers). This is just another example of hate trying to

invade the American way, or freedom to be the best one can be. I beg

of you, do not allow the spoiled sports to run this country. For as

sure as the way they run with `Microsoft, the convicted

felons' will they run with the generous offers of Microsoft.

The bitter rival companies are punishing individuals. If there is a

worse crime it is the bullies (bitter rivals) that feel they have

been bullied (by Microsoft) bullying you and I into their mentality

of mediocrity, focusing on the wrongs in life they have been dealt,

instead of focusing on the rights. Microsoft has been punished and

curtailed. So have I and so has Suzi down the street. But that does

not mean I should open up my doors to those I have wronged and allow

them to run my household and loot from me, nor to be allowed to take

the quality out of what I have. Open your eyes and you will see by

the vicious viruses that have spread to discredit Microsoft whom the

worst offenders are. Give them more ammunition and they will run

with it all the way around the world to terrorize America.

Thank you. Justice is to be served which should include the

terror tactics the bitter opposition has brought upon Microsoft.

MTC-00003532

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 7:13pm

Subject: Microsoft Anti Trust

Dear Sir or Madam:

From what I have read, the penalty is a PR press release for

Microsoft. We helped under privileged schools by giving them

software they would not have bought anyway. By the way, this

intrenches them more since school kids will likely see and use

Microsoft products which encourages them to use them at home and

later when they go into the corporate world. Having been a victim of

MS, yes anyone who buys a computer from a retail store is a victim,

I would like to see them have to buy RedHat or SUSE Linux and deploy

it to under privileged schools and pay for subsequent training of

staff. That way we would be exposing our youth to Operating systems

that are used and designed for the Internet. This would foster

competition and serve the public`s interest. If they deploy MS

products, which typically become incompatible with each other after

each new release, the school will be forced to upgrade each time a

new release comes out in order to inter-operate with any other

division that upgrades. This essentially forces them to upgrade and

buy more MS products in the future.

If you want to serve the public interest do the following: Stop

them from forcing people to buy a MS license with each computer. If

I buy a computer from a retail store I am forced to buy a MS Windows

license whether I intend to use it or not. I may well delete all

software and install a competing OS, such as Linux or Solaris. The

retail store should be able to refund me the purchase price for MS

and remove it if I ask and get a credit from MS. Any competing OS

ends up costing double since you are forced to buy an MS license and

the other OS license as well.

Gosh, what a deal, for Microsoft that is.

Thank you,

Norman Tackett.

MTC-00003533

From: Gary Murphy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 7:15pm

Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust

I have been a computer professional for over 20 years. I have

had the opportunity to watch trends (and companies) come and go. I

have worked in technical areas of many computers from IBM mainframes

to Palm handhelds. It would be impossible to be involved in the

industry as I have been and not have an opinion on Microsoft.

I used to be a strong proponent of Microsoft and encouraged the

use of their products. That loyalty disappeared as Microsoft moved

from an innovative company as they were in the 1980s and started to

use their acquired industry power and substantial financial power to

bully and destroy competitors_not through better products, but

through illegal monopolistic control over a vital part of the

computer industry. My remaining positive feelings for Microsoft were

eliminated when, during lunch with Microsoft VP Brad Silverberg, he

unleashed a grand lie that caused me to provide bad advice to the

company for which I worked at the time. I came to realize that

Microsoft is an unethical company who has

[[Page 24306]]

abused the free ecomony of the U.S. and has abused the judicial

system. Those beliefs were validated by the evidence presented at

the Microsoft vs DOJ trial.

The remedy proposed by the Bush administration does not come

close to an acceptable solution to this problem. The judgment

against Microsoft is so light that it will serve to embolden a

company already overflowing with arrogance. It is my expressed wish

that a more serious and appropriate remedy be taken against

Microsoft.

MTC-00003534

From: Bob

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 7:18pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Renata B. Hesse

Antitrust Division

U.S. Department of Justice

601 D Street NW

Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Ms. Hesse,

I have watched the Microsoft case since its beginning and have

lost faith in our system because of it. The part of the settlement

that surprised me the most is the idea that Microsoft would provide

free software to the educational community. The basic idea of this

falls right in line with what caused them to be in the spot they are

in. The average user of a computer does not realize that he or she

is being denied any choices because there are no choices in the

primary locations people make their purchases. Please continue

working toward a viable settlement that will provide a choice for

the consumer.

Thank you.

Robert Parker

Aurora, Colorado 80011

MTC-00003535

From: Carlo Wood

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 7:29pm

Subject: `Settlement' only in favour of Microsoft

Instead of getting punished, you are allowing Microsoft to dump

their monopoly software on all schools! I am very very against this!

IF there has to be a settlement (which I oppose to begin with) then

demand that Microsoft ONLY deliver the hardware and does NOT install

software on it!!! I know that empty computers are not of much use to

Microsoft_so let RedHat put free software on it, as they

generously offered (or any other NON-Microsoft).

If the current, ridiculous, settlement passes_then you`ve

been tricked by Microsoft and they will be laughing off their asses

behind your back.

Carlo Wood

MTC-00003536

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 7:31pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

8714 Chase Tayler Place Louisville, Kentucky 40299

December 6, 2001

Attorney General John Ashcroft

US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:

I am writing this letter to inform you of my feelings concerning

the Department of Justice and its suit against Microsoft. It is my

strong belief that the Department of Justice has gone overboard with

this suit.

I have been a user of the Windows operating system and feel that

it has provided me with a simple and very efficient way to use the

capabilities of my PC. I feel that the simplification of an

operating system, Windows, is an advantage because it offers a more

uniform approach to operations and applications.

The animosity felt towards Microsoft by a select few should be

refocused to more pressing matters. Microsoft has done a lot of

things to benefit the nation and all the way down to the local

community level.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and I hope you share

my belief that no more Federal action is warranted in this matter.

Sincerely,

Pat Walker

MTC-00003537

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 7:52pm

Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlement

Att: Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney

As a consumer I would like to think that there exists adequate

protection from both State and Federal government to ensure that we

are not subject to the whims and abuse of the marketplace.

In today`s transportation highway a virtual monopoly exists in

the oil industry. We have seen no alternative that has succeeded in

the marketplace dominated by such friendly competitors. Choice is a

sad joke in this area. We cannot afford to allow the same mistake to

happen on the information highway. We have seen Microsoft market

defective products and charge us for patches to correct them. We

have seen them bully their way and intimidate potential innovators

to either sellout or enter niches that tag onto their monopoly.

Apple`s existance is at Microsoft`s pleasure. It serves them to

have the lame dog still in the dog race. We need remedies in place

to ensure that real competition and choice develops. One would think

that the taunting and ridiculous self-serving proposals that

Microsoft has offered would be sufficient to convince the DOJ that

any handcuffs or self-monitoring punishments are nothing but a joke

to Microsoft. They feel that the laws were not written for them and

so far they have been right. What is needed are forceful punishments

such as forfeiture of sales, not profits, obtained through non-

compliance plus a fine sufficient enough to jar the share price.

This is the only action that Microsoft understands. Anything less is

like trying to placate a carnivore with tofu.

We have spent a great deal of PUBLIC money to arrive at a

finding that Microsoft engages in monopolistic activites. The public

deserves a significant return on its investment. Anything less is

making a mockery of the process and will fuel the further

disconnection of the people from their government.

I believe that Microsoft is well able to compete in a leveled

playing field and I will continue to buy their products as I have in

the past. My only fear is that without forceful government oversight

and expensive damages for abusive behavior my interest in their

products will move from a decision of minuscule choice to a decision

of no-choice.

I urge you to fight this battle, figuratively speaking, till

your last breath for the benefit of all of us.

Respectfully,

Jack G. Simke

Burlingame, CA

CC:[email protected]@inetgw

MTC-00003538

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 7:53pm

Subject: Comment regarding proposed settlement of Microsoft vs. DOJ

I faxed my comments to the DOJ, but am not sure they made it.

The number that I sent the comment to was 202-307-1454,

but the identifier on the Machine receiving the Fax was

202-353-8856.

My comments follow:

I support the current settlement with Microsoft by the

Department of Justice and half of the states involved in this

lawsuit. I do not think any more severe penalties are warranted.

Microsoft probably deserved a little hand slapping because of the

way they dealt with the computer manufacturers. But the issue

surrounding the operating system improvements and add ons is

frivolous. The Internet Explorer was a needed part of the operating

system and add ons such as these should be allowed. It was also very

easy for others to use Netscape if they wanted to. Bottom line is

that Internet Explorer wound up being the best browser. I believe

that a large part of the fuss on this issue is being made by

Microsoft`s competitors who have wound up second and third best and

have tried to compensate for their under performance by supporting

the antitrust law suit against Microsoft. I believe that a major

motivating force for the hold out states is purely political as it

relates to companies in their area and political contributions.

As a consumer, I believe that Microsoft has been good to us.

They have provided outstanding products at reasonable and decreasing

prices. Some states would prefer that consumers buy all of the add

ons and that could be big down the road. Where Microsoft has been

dominant in a particular software application, prices have fallen. I

also believe that Microsoft has contributed mightily to the US

economy. They have probably been the biggest contributor in the last

10 years. They should not be punished for being good to consumers

and the economy. I might also add that Microsoft is a good corporate

citizen.

It is time to settle this suit as the Department of Justice and

Microsoft have proposed. The more harsh remedies that are being

proposed by the non-agreeing states should be rejected.

Bob Andrews

Robert F. Andrews

1864 Castle Oaks Court

Walnut Creek, CA 94595

[[Page 24307]]

MTC-00003539

From: Vincent Sheffer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 8:02pm

Subject: Settlement a travesty

I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the antitrust

settlement reached with Microsoft. I have always believed that

justice in the U.S. means 2 things: punishment for the offender and

remedies that prevent the offender from breaking the law, and thus

harming society, again. Your settlement fails miserably on both

counts. I see absolutely no punishment and, even worse, MS will be

able to carry on with the same exact behavior for which they were

found guilty by 8 judges (the original trial judge as well as the 7

appeals court judges). Finally, to the degree that the remedies are

supposed to prevent a repeat of MS illegal behavior they won`t. The

most glaring weakness is in the area of APIs. The lead time that MS

competitors are supposed to get by more timely release of the APIs

is still not sufficient and leaves MS with a substantial advantage

over its rivals. More troubling are the loopholes for allowing MS to

not release certain APIs. Specifically, allowing them to withhold

specifications for security related APIs allows them to pursue their

most important current and future initiative fully capable of using

the same aggressive (and illegal) tactics that the remedy is

supposed to prevent. MS`s Passport authentication system, which is

their most significant strategic product moving into the future,

will be exempted from this so-called remedy. Just as the current DOJ

would never consider letting a convicted drug dealer off the hook

without being punished, neither should you let a convicted corporate

offender off with no punishment and free to engage in exactly the

same condemned behavior in the future. If the current settlement

proceeds unchanged it will be like giving the convicted drug dealer

another bag of crack and letting them off in front of a school yard.

Thank you,

Vincent Sheffer

Software Developer

MTC-00003540

From: Mary Euyang Shen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 8:32pm

Subject: Settlement

Let Microsoft be Microsoft_Remember, it is its Windows

software that unified the computer systems to be able to `talk

to each other'. Give it some credit. And how has it hurt the

consumers? Let the competitors come up with the better software and

consumers will flock to it! These 9 states all have constituents

with competing software manufacturers.

Mary Shen

MTC-00003541

From: harry

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 8:33pm

Subject: ie

Microsoft is justified in bundling their own software with

Windows. It is not justifiable however to include these pieces of

software and then not allow the consumer the option to uninstall it.

I myself would not use Windows XP`s firewall utility, windows media

player, or Internet Explorer, so I should have the ability to choose

all of these applications and uninstall them. Microsoft has built

Windows with these applications in mind so if I even could uninstall

them I would be breaking half of the functionality that Windows XP

now provides. Also, many of Microsofts new .net initiatives will

further fatten their monopoly since many companies are going to jump

on to support this new architecture and then we the consumers are

going to be forced to use Microsoft`s os to benefit from them. I use

linux because of its stability and because it is open sourced. I

feel that many of Microsofts own networking protocols and file type

information should be accessible to the public, so that various

applications can benefit from using their technology. Then we can

work on creating better applications that take advantage of a

singular protocol. The American people should have the right to

decide which software packages they want installed on their system

and applications should not have to define their own file types just

because 99% of the office community must use Microsoft Office to

remain compatible.

MTC-00003542

From: Watts Family

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 9:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I find the settlement as currently extant seriously flawed.

Microsoft is not seriously hindered from continuing to engage in

unfair and or unethical business practices. I was (very)

disappointed at the limited scope of the original charge. Many of

Microsofts most egregious faults were completely ignored. C`est la

vie. The proposed settlement agreement ignores the hobby and Open

Source software movement. The Apache web server program currrently

enjoys the largest market share. There are many other examples of

non-commercial software, too numerous to enumerate here, which are

effectively disempowered re Microsoft by the provisions (Section

III(J)(2) and Section III(D)) of the agreement. I`m not an attorney

nor do I have any significant legal training but I also suspect

these provisions also leave out educational establishments as well

as federal and state government agencies.

In summation, I strongly oppose the settlement its current form.

MTC-00003543

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 9:06pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I feel that the current settlement is not even a slap on wrist

given the egregious abuse of monopoly power and flagrant violation

of the law that Microsoft has engaged in. The only sure way to cure

Microsoft is a structural remedy. History has shown that any other

approach will simply be ignored.

The language of the settlement is full of loopholes which can

(and will!) be easily exploited by Microsoft to continue to shut out

any meaningful competition. In particular the language against not-

for-profits in Section III(J)(2), allows Microsoft to shut out

competition from organization such as Apache Foundation and SAMBA.

I`ll keep this short since there will many more detailed

analyses of the shortcomings of the proposed settlement, but I do

wish to register my displeasure at this weak document.

Andre Burgoyne

Software engineer, U.S. citizen and voter

[email protected]

2446 Grant Street

Berekely, CA 94703

MTC-00003544

From: Darren Beck

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/9/01 12:07pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Hi,

I would like to add my voice of concern about the proposed

Microsoft Settlement.

I have worked in the computer industry for fifteen years and am

now an independant software developer. I have also taken a very

strong interest in the Microsoft Antitrust Case and belive I have

read almost every article that has been written about it over the

last few years since the case began. It has been for me a case of

`will justice be served` and a bit of a reflection on the

state of the world. I don`t think justice is being served at all in

the proposed settlement. The state of the world in computers isn`t

looking too good at the moment. Microsoft has acted against the

spirit and law of the antitrust regulations on a regular basis and

appears to be still doing so. They have been found guilty of serious

antitrust violations. They don`t appear to be in any way interested

in developing new and innovative software, rather their primary

concern is to make sure that they control the market in as many

areas as they possibly can.

I am certain that this is stifling innovation in the industry.

The industry these days seems to have `not getting in

Microsoft`s` way as their prime focus and only seems to be

innovating in areas outside of Microsoft`s concern. I remember well

when new ideas and technologies were driving the industry forward on

an almost daily basis. Now in the major applications areas and in

consumer operating systems there seems to be very little if any

innovation. Microsoft Word and Excel haven`t gotten any better for

years. Internet Explorer, now that it owns the market for web

browsers, hasn`t gotten better for years.

The market for computers and software is now as dead as it has

ever been. Sales are low and growth is slow, and there doesn`t

appear to be much ahead that will fix this while the market is being

continuously stifled.

For what it`s worth, here`s what I think urgently needs to be

done;

1. Windows XP, with all of it`s new `free` add ons needs

to have the add ons removed, or at the very least XP neds to be

available at a cheaper price without these add ons. We are talking

about add ons to do with multimedia, sound, video and instant

communications here! These are crucial areas. If Microsoft is

allowed to include these for free in their operating system then we

can say good bye to innovation in these areas. As

[[Page 24308]]

things stand I can see versions of Windows Media Player that

`never get any better` being around for a long time to come

and keeping this vital area of the market stifled. There is much

that could be done in multimedia and communications if this section

of the industry isn`t stifled.

The fact that Microsoft has been allowed to release Windows XP

with all of this bundled software so soon after it had been found

guilty in court and on appeal of numerous antitrust violations makes

no sense at all.

2. Microsoft should publish freely and to everyone any

networking specifications that it puts into it`s Windows software.

Even better, it should be made to go through a standards committee

if it wants to add to or change it`s networking code. We are not

just talking about networking here, we are talking about the future

of the Internet.

The Internet is (so far) based on open and accessible systems

that have evolved openly and that anyone can use freely. Microsoft

is adding `Microsoft only' code to it`s Windows

operating system and to it`s server software. Windows now

`works better' with Microsoft servers than with other

servers, not because they have come up with better systems but

because they have `designed' their systems to operate in

this way. This might be fine of the code used to do this was open

and available and Microsoft was genuinely innovating, but the code

is closed and propriatory. Nobody else but Microsoft has the power

to introduce closed propriatory systems to the Internet, and

Microsoft is only able to do this because of it`s market share in

desktop operating systems. If people cannot see the networking code

that Microsoft is including in Windows, then Microsoft will suddenly

be able to control the server market and, by simple extension

through it`s .net strategy, the protocols that are the foundation of

the Internet.

If Microsoft owns the Internet protocols then we are all in

trouble! Even if they just own some of them it will be enough to

require almost everyone to use their software. They have done

exactly what they are doing now time and time again in numerous

other markets and they have always succeeded. They are likely to do

the same here. Microsoft needs to publish and make freely available

their Windows networking code in all instances. They should not even

be allowed to own the rights to this code. They should be made to

adopt standards and even to go through standards bodies before

making changes.

I hope someone reads this and takes it seriously. These are

vital matters which are not being addressed or not being addressed

adequately in the proposed antitrust settlement. The proposed

settlement, in my opinion, will not hinder or even slow Microsoft

down in these vital areas.

I have many other thoughts on these matters. If anyone is

interested in hearing them please let me know.

Darren Beck

http://www.codecity.net

MTC-00003545

From: Gary Lindgren

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 9:09pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement Comments

12/8/2001

Renata Hesse

Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division

U.S Department of Justice

In a general way, I fully support the proposed settlement

agreement agreed to by Microsoft, USDOJ, and the 9 states. Let me

tell you a little of what my background is and how I use software.

I`m an engineer and develop Windows applications that control test

instruments for manufacturing use. At work I also use Microsoft

applications for normal office needs. At home My wife and I use

Windows applications(Microsoft and others) for office use and the

internet. Also at home I do a little development of Windows

applications. Our home network consists of 3 PCs, One with

Win2000(used mostly for regular use), one with WinXPPro(for

Windows.Net development), and one with Linux OS and used for the

firewall to the outside via a DSL connection to the internet.

It is extremely important that Microsoft be allowed to control

what features are included in their applications. This is a must.

Microsoft must be allowed to add and control what is in their

operating system. The argument that the other 9 states AGs have used

that Microsoft should provide a stripped down version that does not

include multimedia features is bogus. Customers don`t want this,

it`s the competition that wants this. Price has never been a problem

with Microsoft products. The only problem for the competition is

that Microsoft prices are too low. This is what some of the

competition is worried about. Other multimedia can be easily

downloaded or come from CD-ROMs from the mail(how many CDs have you

received from AOL). The proposed settlement that prevents Microsoft

from forcing PC builders to exclude other competition is good. This

should improve competition. The settlement clause that requires

Microsoft disclose the Windows APIs to the developers is extremely

important. Here I have a suggestion for a small change and I believe

the other 9 states will go along with this. I propose that that the

Windows APIs be disclosed in 6 months time and be available on

Microsoft`s web site. These APIs must be freely available everyone

and not just to certain subscribers to the MSDN service.

In summary: The proposed settlement agreed to by DOJ, Microsoft,

and 9 states is good. The disclosure of WinAPIs should be made

available in 6 months and to everyone that wishes to see them.

Please let me know if I can be of any further service.

Sincerely,

Gary Lindgren

585 Lincoln Ave

Palo Alto CA 94301

650-594-3846

MTC-00003546

From: Ruben Odom jr

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 9:23pm

Subject: Anti Trust

I know that Microsoft is the most popular and trusted software

developer in the world. This is because they make it easy for every

person to get involved in the computer efficiency movement. There

was no way for the computer giant to actually close out other

companies from the computer industry. When the DOJ made them (and

all other software developer`s) from exclusive contracts, that made

the way for other software makers (like RedHat) to actually make

there way into the door with its free software.

The interest of the Free Software Movement`s head way onto the

desk top through the loss of exclusive contracts may make it more

visible, but still wont be able to `level the playing

field' for the computer hobbyist. They will have to be able to

differentiate themselves with ease, simplicity, and power that any

corporate software make does in order to over through the software

giant.

The Free Software foundation is not one David`s smooth stones

that can topple Goliath (Microsoft). It can only be done with the

stones of public trust, longevity, and simplicity. I truly don`t

think that free stuff will ever win enough granite make these stones

because there is no warranty. There is also a shortage of IT people

that can service the masses and therefore, fall behind the

capabilities of the American business model.

The hole of the Free Software Movement talks a bold game in

saying that they want to place there already free software in the

schools, but don`t have the necessary resources to capture and keep

the natural curiosity of a child_let alone a poor one that

wants the pride of being like the Jones. If the poor schools don`t

take the free resources, then a rich school will and there will

continue to be a wider gape between the rich and poor.

I feel that Linux should stay something for the hobbyist and

computer professionals because the common, still weary user will

loose interest quickly. Trust me, Free Software lacks any creativity

what so ever and will always be a cheap substitute because of it. Me

on the other hand_a tech nut, know and value Free Linux.

However, I realize the limitations and see that other software

makers need to get off of there a**es and come up with an operating

system that supports all of the modern technology.

Ruben A. Odom Jr.

[email protected]

MTC-00003547

From: RR-

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 9:36pm

Subject: Microsofft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

In 1995, Microsoft gave its browser away to the public, and they

still do. This has been a tremendous benefit to the consumer!!!!

Before that time you had to purchase it through Netscape and they

had the only browser on the market. Everyone I know was extremely

happy that Microsoft was giving away Internet Explorer free of

charge!

I am just one of many small consumers, but I think this suit has

nothing to do with harming consumers! I think it has to do with

harming other competitors, namely Sun Microsystems, Oracle, and AOL.

I firmly believe that this country is based on free enterprise,

and the government

[[Page 24309]]

should not interfere with the personal grudges and competition from

other companies I think everyone including the nine states should

accept the Justice Departments & Microsoft`s settlement

agreement. Let`s get on with life, and perhaps this will help put an

end to the recession that we have in our country today.

Best Regards,

Ray Reid

MTC-00003548

From: DR

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 10:05pm

Subject: make windows open source

Make windows open source, so that anyone who runs it has the

choice of how it interacts with what hardware/software they have, at

the moment there is no choice and users are dependant on less than

reliable operating systems (windows) to deal with... making windows

open source opens up many possibilities and does not kill microsoft.

They can still support an open source operating system, and the

poeple using it will not be dictated to how microsoft thinks the way

they sould be interacting with it. every other OS out there is open

source. and it promotes freedom for the end user. No longer would

the blue screen of death be something that they would just

`have to deal with'.

What made me make this statement was after seeing the cost of

XP. In Australia (and im sure same in US) the rediculous cost of

this less than adequate OS is more than half the cost of a decent

computer, Is that freedom of choice for the user that doesnt now

much better? thats a monopoly. This has gone further than the days

when MS decided to rear end Netscape by bundling IE into windows ,

and im sure the cost of XP solidifies that. And what has microsoft

got by being forced to spend money of less than fortunate students?

Good PR. that is not a solution that will stop MS doing what they

are doing, it will just amplify their monopoly.

Forgive me if i am wrong, but isnt its the governments role to

be helping under priveleged children with funding.?? MS does its

punishment by forking out a small sum of their empire, and continues

to screw the rest of the software dev community.

Count how many applications become superceded by XP.. winzip is

one of them. Wasnt this the reason the DOJ took MS to court for in

the first place? for anti competetiveness?

Kind Regards

Duane Reilly

Unix Administrator

MTC-00003549

From: Robert D. Wales

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 10:17pm

Subject: Comments on the Microsoft case results

I think that the government has been too lenient on ( if not

aiding) Microsoft with its verdict.

(1) To allow Microsoft to `donate' their products to

schools is aiding them to increase their monopoly by training

students to use only their products.

(2) To allow Microsoft to continue to include their programs in

their operating systems essentially gives them a monopoly on all

aspects of computer software.

(3) To allow Microsoft to undermine, corrupt, and otherwise

defeat the use of any programs but their own is to force all other

companies into bankruptcy.

(4) To allow Microsoft to keep their source code private with no

good controls is to further aid in their monopolistic endeavors.

Thank you in advance for considering my comments,

Yours,

R. D. Wales

MTC-00003550

From: Shinita Crawley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 10:27pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Hi my name is Shinita and for class our professor wants us to

find out the who are the parties affected by this settlement and

cite our sources.

Do all of the parties have to agree with settlement? What

happens to those parties who decide not to join in on the settlement

and what will their remedy be?

If you can answer any of these questions please email me at

[email protected]

MTC-00003551

From: Raquel

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 10:28pm

Subject: This one deserves a second look ....

Dear Fellow Entrepreneur,

Are you achieving the results that you are trying to achieve

with your online business?

If your current business is offering a product that is a quick

and simple solution to a problem that concerns most people, most of

the time, then you would be very happy, and wealthy. WELL DONE. If

it is not, than unfortunately you are probably not making much

money, and presumably won`t.

Unfortunately if your product is not a quick and simple solution

to a problem that concerns most people, most of the time, then you

won`t be able to market to the majority of the Internet population

out their will you. Anyone who is making any real money out there

would have to have a quick and simple solution to a problem that

concerns most people, most of the time wouldn`t they. Sorry for

repeating it so often, but if you truly want to make any money

through the Internet, then you will need to know this sentence (a

quick and simple solution to a problem that concerns most people,

most of the time) off by heart.

If you really want to make money using the Internet, than I may

be able to help you. I say maybe because this business is not for

anyone who is not going to be committed to making $40,000 in 6

weeks, (Quicksmart, which is shown below) and then working towards

making $1,000,000 in 180 days using a very effective program called

Infoshare.

Both these programs WILL make you money as long as you are

committed to making them successful.

Others just like you and myself ARE making this kind of money as

you read this. If you are committed enough to do exactly as I say,

then you WILL succeed. It is very VERY simple, and I will help you

with everything you need to know to become successful. I am not

successful unless you are, so I will not leave you in the dark like

others often do. I will do everything I can to help you.

Discover how to make true wealth using the same secrets that the

millionaires are using to achieve results and success on the Web.

Remember the old saying `If you can`t beat them, join

them.'

Well this is the same thing. You are about to Learn how the big

guns are making all that easy money, and how YOU TOO can live a life

of good health, love, and have all the time in the world to give to

yourself and your family.

Once if I receive your $5, I will send you the URL address of

the `Lazyman`s Guide to Success' in Phase 2.

Once there you will be able to learn all the secrets to success

on the Web. You will also have access to 3 sensational programs for

free, which you will use to send out hundreds of E-mail every day.

This is what makes this program so different to the ones that are

very hard to make successful. Advertising at various classified

sites really does not work, does it? So we need to find another way

to advertise our business, and sending out bulk E-mail every day to

a targeted population does work. This program is probably the

easiest to set up and run, and also the quickest to make great

money.

In Phase 2 you will send out bulk E-mail using 3 very effective

programs. The first you will use to extract E-mail addresses from

various free classified web sites.

The second will sort out your E-mail list that you have just

extracted so that you will have a clean list of E-mail addresses to

send your offer to. Finally your third program will send out your

Bulk E-mail.

Do you agree that this is a much more effective way of

advertising then placing ads all over different classified web

sites, and just receiving counter offers in your inbox? From now on

you will still have plenty of E-mail, but it will be people wanting

to sign up. Now that is what I call results.

The last thing, and the most important to be successful, is to

DREAM. Dream and make goals of what you want to buy for yourself,

your family and friends.

Dream about where you want to live, go on a holiday, and what

kind of car you have always wanted, and of course, what life will be

like when you ARE a MILLIONAIRE. This is the most important

ingredient to success. Every successful person does it. Why? Success

WILL NOT come unless you dream and set goals. The reason that we set

goals and dream is for the simple fact that if you come across a

problem, then you should think about your goal or dream. This will

make you determined enough to seek help and move on. I will be here

to help you, so that you can get passed any problem that you may

come across. No business is perfect, but you can not find a much

easier one than this One. Once you have fixed the problem, you will

move forward and be $1,000,000 richer, and your goals and dreams all

come true.

[[Page 24310]]

And of course you will set higher goals and dreams for yourself.

LET`S GET STARTED SHALL WE!!! Yes right now, not tomorrow.

Because I know you are keen to be successful. Save this E-mail to

your hard drive and read it OFFLINE so that you are not wasting

valuable money on the Internet, and do exactly as it says. Once you

read it, if you have any questions with anything, anything at all,

than send me an E-mail. Once you have made your easy $40,000 in the

next 6 weeks, we will than start to set up the real money making

machine `Infoshare' so that you can make $40,000 look

like pocket money. I look forward to hearing from you, and let

success begin.

PEOPLE HELPING PEOPLE (Quicksmart Program) `The key to

success' (No one can cheat and no one can move ahead of you.)

PHASE 1: This program is designed to make money via

Internet_quickly and honestly! It is quite new, yet already

proven to be most effective. It is truly exciting, with many people

now using it, and with so many more still to see it. It is not the

same as other programs that (only at first) may seem to be similar.

This program has been designed to avoid all of the traps and all of

the cheats. You can quickly prove that it is both real and safe,

before you decide to participate. NOTE: Please read this complete

document to be sure that you fully understand it. If I told you I

would give you the $1,000,000 to jump out of a plane without a

parachute, you would probably say `No way', right? You

would have missed out on the easiest million dollars in your life as

the plane was on the ground. Make sure you know all the facts before

deciding. Take the time to read it again and again if you have to.

E-mail me with any questions if you remain unsure of anything.

Should you decide to run it, by following the easy instructions

carefully, you will be delighted with the results!

PHASE 1 BEGINS: Prepare to be impressed! This program is very

powerful_a real money generator on the Web! No other program

comes close when you need money quickly and honestly. You are

guaranteed financial success with this opportunity because of the

method used to CONFIRM the HONESTY of each participant. However,

when most of us first look at this program, we may think its just

another get rich quick scheme. But it isn`t_by reading the

details you will see that it is quite different. And only about a

week after starting, money will start rolling in quickly from all

over the world!

This is a FAIL-SAFE money making program where all cash receipts

are verifiable in advance, because every participant is held

ACCOUNTABLE. Every participant gets paid well, Every participant is

sure that nobody can cheat. That is why I chose to participate. I

invite you to do likewise. Being fail-safe and cheat proof, what

have we got to lose?

The power of the Internet is here to be used. More and more

people are using this program to produce a substantial income

quickly.

Expect to earn up to US$40,000 in the next six weeks (MAXIMUM

TIME). We all know that Internet money programs can really work, but

most of us have major concerns about them:

1. They are too complex, often requiring large investments.

2. They require real Internet marketing experience.

3. There is usually no way of monitoring returns.

4. There is no way of eliminating cheaters.

This program solves all of those concerns! It is 100% certain

that everyone will get paid for participating. This is because we

require accountable E-mail addresses for all participants. The total

cost to you is two US $5 Bills, plus postage for just two letters.

(Not a lot, no matter what your present circumstances may be.)

But you spend nothing at all, until you gain E-mail confirmation

that the sender of this letter has paid! Please read this carefully.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me by replying to my

E-mail address, as the sender of this program.

The fail-safe mechanism controls the program, so it`s impossible

for anyone to cheat. This way nobody gets hurt and everyone gets

paid. All participants make the money they deserve for their

efforts. Read on and you will see why.

The method of accountability used keeps everyone honest. We all

get our money by building an easy and valuable MAILING LIST. Too

many programs before this one have no fail-safe method for

protecting the honest participants from those who put their names on

a list without sending any money. That is what causes such programs

to ultimately fail.

With this program it is IMPOSSIBLE FOR SUCH CHEATING TO HAPPEN.

If you decide to participate, you will be required to send $5 (US

currency) to just two of the people on the list shown below, with a

note asking them to add your name to their Mailing List and send you

a copy of, `Phase 2'. More about that shortly.

First take the time to SAVE this letter to a word file so that

you can edit the prescribed areas later if you do decide to join.

Once you finish reading check the honesty of me and that I have paid

my $10. The very first step is to E-mail the two people in the

Position #1 and Position #2 from the current Accountability

List below, and ask them if they have received their $5 from me.

This is what MAKE`S CERTAIN the success of this program. You will

not send money to me until you KNOW that I have paid the people in

Positions 1 and 2.

POSITION #1

Mikael Mansson

Ringovagen 103

SE-37160 LYCKEBY

SWEDEN

Email: [email protected]

POSITION #2

Michael Warren

6/70 East Ave

Black Forest, South Australia 5035

Australia

E-mail: [email protected]

E-mail to check accountability: [email protected]

The above are the two people I sent my US $5 to, with a note

asking them to add me to their mailing list and send me Phase 2.

After you have verified that I am genuine and decide to

participate, address an Envelop to the person currently in Position

#3 (me), put a $5 bill (US Currency), your name, address, and E-

mail address included, on a note that reads `Please add my

name to your Mailing List and rush Phase 2 to me' NOTE: Only

the person in Position #3 supplies Phase 2, NEVER any other

person. Also take care to write the names of the addressees

correctly. (some international names can sound a little bit

unfamiliar to Americans or Australians).

POSITION #3

Steve Starlight

Room 507

Kayajang Motel

1094-6, Eu-Bang Dong

Gimhae City

Busan

Kyung-Nam

Republic of Korea 621-170

E-Mail: [email protected]

Again please turn the closest attention to correctly overwriting

the addresses of the persons you will direct a letter with a $5 bill

to.

Next, address an envelope to the person in Position #4;

enclose a $5 bill, your name, address, and E-mail address with a

note that states, `Please add me to your mailing list'

POSITION #4

Matthew Jahred

131 Mainstreet

Birmingham

United Kingdom

E-mail: [email protected]

NOW ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS EDIT YOUR COPY OF THIS LETTER AS

FOLLOWS:

FIRST: Move the person currently in POSITION #4 to POSITION

#2. Be sure all information is copied correctly and completely.

(The person originally in Position #2 is now dropped from the

list, and has made their $40,000)

SECOND: Move the person in POSITION #1 to POSITION #4

with all the correct information.

THIRD: Move the person in POSITION #3 to POSITION #1

with all the correct information.

FINALLY: Enter YOUR name, complete address, and E-mail address

in to POSITION #3. Please also provide your name and E-mail

address at the end of this letter. Remember: You only send the $5 to

the names in POSITIONS #3 and #4 on this letter DO NOT SEND

MONEY TO THE NAMES IN POSITIONS #1 AND #2.

NOTE: When typing your E-mail address, please remember to be

accurate. Double check! Once you start, there are two simple things

you must do to make this work for the maximum return in 2 months.

BE PATIENT at the start! It takes easily a week or so to really

get up and going, and to start receiving lots of money in your

letterbox.

BUT THEY WILL COME! This is the Internet! YOU WILL DEFINITELY

MAKE A LARGE SUM OF MONEY WITHIN A FEW WEEKS, and you will also have

a mailing list service to use yourself, or even to sell. That in

itself can be valuable.

THIS PROGRAM IS DESIGNED TO MAKE MONEY FAST! It is very

INEXPENSIVE to participate in, just compare it to the value of

[[Page 24311]]

lottery tickets_where making money is next to impossible!

There are no postage expenses, other than the two stamps needed to

mail your two $5 bills.

If any of the addresses require overseas mailing, do it via

airmail for speed. Think of the power of the program running

Internationally! There are no name lists, nor other unseen expenses.

Other than the two initial letters, this program operates totally

on-line

FURTHER INFORMATION: You may already feel that this program is

not what you thought at first, but still remain doubtful or a little

unclear about whether or not to have a go. Unlike so many other

programs, you do not send money to four or five people for reports,

recipes, disks, or any other product. Nor do you risk losing your

time and money.

This program is less demanding and does not take advantage of

the naive. Effectively, we all become a team_we know that we

must follow the rules, and that our teamwork ensures that we all

win. This program has been set up so that you will succeed. If you

do exactly as described, then you will succeed, in this business

To compare this with the many uncontrolled programs: First of

all, this program has only four controlled, levels_not five,

six, seven, or more uncontrolled levels like other programs. When

you first send this program out, you will soon get 40-50

people who send you $5 to join the mailing list and to commence

their Phase 2. They will do this only after they confirm that you

have paid your $10.

To account for curiosity seekers, and people who don`t recognize

the opportunity (not you, of course!), let`s say that only 20 people

then actually pursue the program provided. These 20 in the

Accountability List POSITION #1, and their respondents will be

asking YOU if they paid their $5 dollars. Their active participants

will then move your name to POSITION #4, WHERE YOU WILL BE

RECEIVING $5 notes from 20 x 20 x 20 people. That`s a total of 8,000

people. 8000 X $5 = $40,000!

Because this is done on the Internet it moves very quickly.

Therefore, you only need 20 ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS who actually promote

this program to reach the target. You should advertise/E-mail until

twice that number of people (40-50) has sent you the $5 and

received Phase 2 from you via E-mail. At this point, all you will

have to do will be to answer the E-mails saying, `Yes, I have

been paid.'

NOTE: Be sure to keep a record of th

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.