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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3AX02-160503

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Notice
- **Published:** May 3, 2002
- **Citation:** 67 FR 24495

## Text

[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 wan

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3AX02-160503. Public record. Not legal advice.