# United States v. Microsoft Corporation; Public Comments; Notice (MTC-00007630 - MTC-00012282)

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3AX02-190503

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Notice
- **Published:** May 3, 2002
- **Citation:** 67 FR 24932

## Text

[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24932-25567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X02-190503]

MTC-00007630

From: Rodney Haas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom this may concern,
Frankly I cannot believe this lawsuit lasted this long. There is
no question that an excessive and unfair settlement will further
destroy the software business. Microsoft has been the driving force
for bringing the price of both software and hardware down. Microsoft
not only has not hurt the consumer, but has radically helped.
You only need to look @ apple as a comparison. Apple has indeed
harmed the consumer with unreasonably high prices. Apple has clearly
harmed innovation except for the chosen few. Microsoft has in fact
had open and published interfaces to their software for years. I
have used this interface many times to extend my vertical market
applications. This has allowed me to add massive power to my
applications without having to charge my clients.
In closing I would highly suggest that you focus your energy on
something else. While some of Microsoft's competitors have been
hurt, must are far to large to even qualify under the monopoly
protections. Companies like Netscape were clearly not hurt selling
for more than 4 billion dollars. Many other companies that have gone
away, have done so because of bad UI, marketing and faulty feature
sets.
Rodney Haas
[email protected]
[email protected]

MTC-00007631

From: Beckers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ et al:
Please help stop the feeding frenzy at Microsoft and consumers'
expense. Microsoft delivers fairly sophisticated products at
reasonable prices, and do not manufacture hardware other than basic
peripherals such as keyboards. We need them creating superior
products to help balance our trade deficit. Instead, you might want
to investigate ``proprietary'' software products by companies who
really want to prevent the establishment of industry standards and
protocols.
Rick Becker
California, USA

MTC-00007632

From: Richard Paietta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:57pm
Subject: The Settlement
Dear Sirs:
This suit should have never been undertaken in the first place.
It was done by the previous administration for the benefit of
Microsoft's competition. At no time was the public hurt or at issue
in this case. This action has cost the taxpayers millions of dollars
for the benefit of a few (e.g. AOL, Sun, Etc). Not only has this
cost the American taxpayer in dollars that could have been spent
elsewhere it has cause the present downturn in our economy. DOJ was
right in settling the issue and the remaining 9 states that are home
to Microsoft's competition should be forced to settle. This was a
case of bad law and the legal system showing its worst side. There
is no excuse for the Federal Government having to act as the
protector of Microsoft's competition. The law was put on the books
for the protection of the public. The market place in a free economy
determines who stays in business and who does not. This suit has
also cost many of us who have invested in Microsoft for their
retirement. What do you intend to do to help, since this has cost
many large sums of their retirement investments. Settle the case and
ask to judge to force a resolution with the hold out states. It is
time that DOJ corrected the mistakes of the past administration.
Richard L. Paietta
[email protected]

MTC-00007633

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle with Microsoft and end this litigation. The
settlement is fair and reasonable to all parties. It will be good
for the economy. Thank you.
Marge Ferrari, 135 Westwood Drive, Novato, CA 94945

MTC-00007634

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:58pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Please settle this case ASAP. I am very tired of disgruntled
companies who are not capable of competing on their own trying to
use the courts to further their position in the world of tough
competition. I thought capitalism is what made us a free enterprise
nation, and competition is what enables the best of the best to help
build this country on a world wide basis. I still do not understand
why the previous administration wanted to punish a remarkable
company like Microsoft. Let's get on with life, stop wasting
taxpayers money and let the best companies win. That's what it is
all about.
Michael D. Arndt

MTC-00007635

From: Jerome Montez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:59pm
Subject: Settlement
My opinon on this case is leave private enterprizes alone the
goverment should stay out of it all they manage to do is drive up
prices for the consumer

MTC-00007636

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the Microsoft settlement is appropriate and should be
enacted.
Ethel Gardner
175 e. 74 st.
New York, N.Y.

MTC-00007637

From: Marx Heller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to know who determined that the break up of
Microsoft would be in the consumers best interest. I would bet it
came from a disgruntled competitor like Netscape. Surely it could
not have come from the same people that thought that breaking up
AT&T was good for the consumer. I feel that to penalize Microsoft
for continuing to develop new technology is wrong. It sends a
message to others that may want to develop and market a product,
that if they get too big or too popular and the competition can no
longer provide an equal quality product for a competitive price,
that someone well sue them and try to destroy what they have done.
If I am successful, the government will take away that success.
Enough is enough! Why is it that the courts have recommended a
settlement and Microsoft has agreed to it, that their are still
those that oppose that settlement. They seem intent on destroying
Microsoft. How much do those people give back to the people
responsible for their success? How much do they give to charity? How
much? I feel that if Microsoft continues to come under assault, that
the inevitable result will be less new innovation and new technology
and higher prices to pay for it. I am sorry, but my idea of the
American Way is not to Pay more for less!
Marx Heller
Williamstown NJ
[email protected]
I VOTE!!

MTC-00007638

From: Zelia Compton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle now.

MTC-00007639

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:00pm
Subject: Settlement
In all of this litagation, I have never seen one consumer come
forward and actually state that the packages that Microsoft bundled
together hurt them. I for one am glad Microsoft put these programs
together on my computer. If I would have had to go out and purchase
these programs separately, I probably would not have a computer
today.
Thank You;
[email protected]

MTC-00007640

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a middle class worker, saving for retirement...with a fair
amount of Microsoft stock in my portfolio. Ever since the Reno/
Clinton ``Justice'' Department abused Microsoft through the courts,
I have had my retirement portfolio abused also. The settlement has
been accepted by DOJ and Microsoft, our nation's economy has already

[[Page 24933]]

taken enough hits, let Microsoft and the American economy serve our
interests by growth and innovation. We have gotten rid of Reno/
Clinton, now let's get rid of the droppings they afflicted us with.
END THIS NOW!!
Sincerely,
Kevin Smith

MTC-00007641

From: Robert Heffner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ:
I am writing to urge settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case
now. I have personally benefited enormously in my work from the
greater efficiency of Microsoft products, particularly the
standardization of the PC platform. Although I am not a lawyer, I
believe that this was a dubious case from the beginning, pushed by
Microsoft competitors who had been soundly trounced in the
marketplace.
Ending this case now, when our country is struggling to regain
economic growth, is in the best interest of our nation's
international competitive posture, and, hence, very much in the
public interest.
Thank you.
Robert H. Heffner

MTC-00007642

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time to stop harrassing US business. There is no harm to
the public by completing the Microsoft settlement now. To the
contrary there is more harm to consumers and America to keep up the
battle to assist a few of the competors.

MTC-00007643

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:01pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
PLEASE settle this lawsuit with Microsoft with no further
litigation. It has gone on long enough for a company that I feel has
follwed the path that the strength of this country was built on.
They started from nothing and built it into a very successful
company. If other companies can't compete then they shouldn't be
crybabies, but find a different product or become better competitors
without running to the fed gov to solve their problems. Bill Linker
PS: this is the first time I have tried to make my voice heard but I
feel strongly enough about this to respond.

MTC-00007644

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:02pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
I urge you to proceed and complete the Microsoft settlement
during the first quarter of 2002. This long standing settlement need
to be resolved NOW. I also urge you to accept Microsoft's offer to
supply computer equipment to our school system and NOT cash. The use
of additional cash in our schools will not improve the level of
education of our children--computers will. I am suspicious of the
motives of our administrators that the cash may be used for their
own pet projects and wage increases. I don't trust the integrity of
our school administrators. Throwing $$$ at the education system will
not improved the education level of our children, it hasn't in the
past i.e., lottery etc.
Regards,
Roy Tweedie

MTC-00007645

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:03pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
microsoft never did anything wrong...in business you deserve
what you invent and earn from that invention!

MTC-00007646

From: larry novak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:03pm
Subject: Enough already, callit quits
Dear Sirs'
Enough of this wasting the tax payers money, so that a few
lawyers can make a killing of a bigger settlement. The settlement is
fair ---end it all.
Thank you
Lawrence Novak

MTC-00007647

From: Candace Hawthorne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Atty. General Ashcroft,
I am writing to commend the DOJ in it's wise settlement with
Microsoft. I feel this needs to be wrapped up and completed and
quickly as possible for the sake of the technology sector, our
economy and Microsoft to restore the status quo. If it is at all
possible for the DOJ to intervene with the nine states still
pursuing further remedies of Microsoft that would also be supported.
Without Microsoft we would not have as a tool in every home the PC,
we never would have had the ease of use we have as well. I feel it
is a HUGE mistake to a country to go after it's crown jewel. Happy
New Year.
Sincerely,
Candace Hawthorne
Metairie, LA 70001

MTC-00007648

From: Rose Rothe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 10:58pm
Subject: Settlement
Enough is enough. Let this case be settled now. This company has
done more for the American economy and for all us who are computer
folks. If it were not for Microsoft, we would not be where we are
now. It takes people who are innovative and visonaries to bring
forth products as Microsoft has brought to the world. Again, please
put an end to this case without damaging this inovative, visionary
company.
Rose and Dietmar Rothe
Cardiff-by-the-Sea, CA
[email protected]

MTC-00007649

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I firmly believe that the DOJ should put the Microsoft
litigation behind us. Microsoft has continually produced an
excellent product with each new release better than its previous
software and generally at lower prices. Microsoft has done this
while incurring substantial costs associated with litigation and
settlements. As a user I have never been forced to use Microsoft
software, I have always had available to me a multiplicity of
software to choose from and have selected support software based
upon capability and support.
I implore DOJ to let Microsoft get on with its primary business.
From a user's point of view they have never been a monopoly as
alternatives were always available to me, Microsoft was just a cause
which the Janet Reno DOJ used to keep people from asking why some
other more pertinent issues were not being investigated.
Sincerely
Dr. L. Kreuter

MTC-00007650

From: pernoid
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:08pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
The Microsoft settlement reached by the Court Of Appeals should
stand & be the final end of the Microsoft litigation. This will
definitely be in the interest of consumers, the industry and the
American economy.
Glory Perno

MTC-00007651

From: Borden Nettles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:09pm
Subject: Microsoft
Please move on to productive work and get out of Microsoft
business. I have been ashamed of our government in this case because
I believe the entire lawsuit was based on political motives rather
than the law. I further believe the USDOJ action and the resulting
media coverage in this case has in part been responsible for reduced
confidence in the stock market. Thank you for recording my opinion.
I am
Borden Nettles
Franklin, TN 37067

MTC-00007652

From: Charles H Caplan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:10pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Let's get this over with. Approve it as it stands and let's get
on with business.
Charles H Caplan
Bellevue, WA

MTC-00007653

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
I want to applaud the Federal Government's settlement of the
Microsoft

[[Page 24934]]

case and hope that the agreement willbe accepted by the Fed and the
States. Please use this as one vote to continue on the path that has
been proposed and let Microsoft get on with business.
It is my opinion that the competitors of Microsoft have
continued stir the pot and to encourage the remaining states that
have not settled to ask for more limitations. The continued
litigation that these remaining groups are attempting is causing
confusion over Windows development for both third party developers
and users of Windows. Wasn't the example of the IBM case where
billions were wasted in trying to limit the size and power of a
wealthy Corporation enough to show that the market place will do in
time what will be done without Govt. Intervention?
It seems that this is a case of State Government attempting to
squeeze a successful Corporation for funds because the source of
their usual funding (Sales Tax) is drying up. What possible good can
the States litigation do for the consumers?
The Clinton Administration's insistence of following through
with this litigation has cost Technical stockholders a considerable
amount in share prices over the life of the litigation.
Additionally, the cost of the actual litigation has had to be a very
costly drain on Federal Govt and Microsoft's resources. It would
seem that this effort would be better spent getting bad guys rather
than chasing one of our star Corporations in the Technical world.
Now to have the States trying to squeeze more from Microsoft is only
depressing the Tech market and innovation even more.
Please curb the Antitrust Division and stop these unnecessary
probes of our successful Corporations such as IBM, Microsoft, Intel,
AOL, Cisco and AT&T. Govt. should not be creating problems for our
leading Tech Corporations that have put America in the leading
position in the Information Processing Industry.

MTC-00007654

From: Greg Sprinkle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Subject: Comments on the Proposed Settlement--Microsoft vs USA
For the public record:
As someone intimately familiar with computing in general and the
computer industry as a whole, I have witnessed firsthand the adverse
effects of Microsoft's monopolistic business practices and their
devastating effects on consumers.
In the last year alone, the computing public has lost one of the
most promising consumer orientated desktop operating systems to come
along in the last ten years, namely BeOS. BeOS had technology that
simplified the computing experience for the average consumer, while
at the same time had technology that was vastly superior to what is
available under the Windows operating systems. The single most
reason that BeOS could not succeed in the market, is the absolute
death grip Microsoft has on OEM's and total control of the boot
loader process.
As a consumer of computer software and a concerned citizen of
the United States, I have a real problem with the proposed
settlement. I cannot see how the proposed settlement even pretends
to remedy the antitrust violations for which Microsoft has been
found guilty. The proposed settlement contains no penalties--
monetarily or otherwise. None! It does not nothing to provide
further competition or halt Microsoft's continuing maintenance of
their monopoly of desktop operating systems. Perhaps the most
disturbing part of the proposed settlement is the provision for
Microsoft to determine who their competition actually is in regards
to revealing API's and source code.
While I believe the initial pursuit to break up the company was
the best course of action, I would be willing to accept the
alternatives being put forth by the nine states who have refused to
endorse the proposed settlement. To add, the barest minimum of
remedies possible should include the following features:
*Any remedy seeking to prevent an extension of Microsoft's
monopoly must place Microsoft products as extra-cost options in the
purchase of new computers. [Consumers who do not wish to purchase
Microsoft products are not forced to do so].
*Prices of Microsoft products through OEM's must mirror those
same products in the retail channel so that products can compete on
merit and not price alone. [Consumers must have a choice in
competing office suite products at similar prices].
*In addition to opening the Windows application program
interface [API's], the specifications of Microsoft's present and
future document file formats must be made public, so that documents
created in Microsoft applications may be read by programs from other
makers, on Microsoft's or other operating systems. [No consumer or
organization must choose Microsoft products based on proprietary
file formats or falsely perceived standards].
*Any and all Microsoft networking protocols must be published in
full and approved by an independent network protocol body.
Furthermore, the controlling body should be a government agency such
as the National Bureau of Standards and should apply to the industry
as a whole. [All protocols must be available through an ``open
source'' method of development with a small number of comitters to
fix bugs and plug security leaks].
*Microsoft must be made to realize that other operating systems
have the right to exist and they shall do nothing to erase any or
all entries in the master boot record. [Microsoft operating systems
shall include utility software to enable dual booting of other
operating systems when detected on computer hard drives--not just
their own].
The proposed settlement seems to have been made in haste and in
light of of the attacks of September 11th with little or no thought
for the long range implications--for the economy or national
security. Many have accused the DOJ of a ``sellout'', but my opinion
is that they are seeking a quick fix in order to revitalize economic
growth.
In a study released a year ago by the highly respected Center
for Strategic and International Studies, Microsoft's operating
systems actually poses a national security risk. Open source
advocates have made a compelling case that prove publicly available
and open programs, protocols and file formats are much more secure.
We are a nation of computers, networks and a vast dependence on
technology and as such, are a prime target for cyber terrorism
attacks of untold proportions.
I believe we, as a nation, are at a critical junction at the
cross roads of the information technology age. In many respects, we
are in the same position as that of the early days of the industrial
revolution--where we had railroads of different scales, track
widths, etc. In the case of the railroads, the problem was one of
standardization and it caused loss of productivity and timely
delivery. The computer industry desperately needs standardization in
the same way; in protocols, file formats and programs. This, I
believe, is the single most important part of this whole issue and
the fact that Microsoft's sole business plan can be summed up as
``control the standard''.
In closing, all are surely in agreement that the resolution of
this case is of great importance, not just now but for many years to
come. This suggests a careful and deliberate penalty is far more
important to the health of the nation than is a hasty one.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Sprinkle
3907 Lanyard Ct.
Chester, VA 23831-7379
email: [email protected]

MTC-00007655

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:12pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
sirs, this suit has been tried to death.the remaining states are
arguing for microsfts competitors in their home states not for some
imagined u.s. citizens who supposedly are being overcharged for
microsoft products.these competitors should compete with their
products against microsoft not with their lawyers.let us comlply
with the decision already in place and get out on with moving
business ahead.
sincerely,
george o. mills
lavallette,nj 08735

MTC-00007656

From: James Rhodes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Selltlement
It is my firm belief that any more litigation against Microsoft
would once more plunge the tec. markets into another freefall just
as two years ago when weak insecure corporations turned to the
Clinton justice department for help. If the government wants to
bring on another down cycle, just keep pounding away at the one
company that truly

[[Page 24935]]

knows how to innovate and develop solutions to complex problems. Why
is it that people who know how to get things done are always being
attacked by those who can't? The more I see the law being applied in
this country, the less respect I have for it. Lawyers, journalists,
politicians--they build nothing yet suck the life out of everything.

MTC-00007657

From: Paul Monson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs;
I have been a computer user for many years. I owned one of the
first IBM-PC produced and have continually upgraded. I remember the
days when competing Operating Systems were available and I am glad
those days are gone. It was a nightmare having software that would
work under one operating system but not another. I know monopolies
in general are undesirable but in the case of computer operating
systems they are much better than the alternative. I also do not
have any problem with ``bundling'' of the internet browser. For many
years I used Netscape as my preferred browser even when Internet
Explorer was the default browser installed with the Microsoft
operating system. I have now switched to Internet Explorer simply
because it is now better than Netscape, but I would still be running
Netscape if it were superior.
I think it is time to lay-off of Microsoft, I believe that most
people feel as I do that in general we are much better off with
Microsoft as is rather that broken-up or otherwise handicapped. I
have found that most Microsoft products are superior to competing
products> Why can the public not be able to use such superior
products.
I am not a Microsoft employee but a individual public citizen.
Paul Monson

MTC-00007658

From: Michael Beers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 9:11pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Hello, my name is Michael Beers. I'm a hard-working friendly
American male. I'll make it short. Settle the Microsoft case now. It
is unfortunate in this country that success, when deemed
``excessive,'' is so despised that we have to attempt to destroy it,
to make it small again, to make it average. Pay no attention to the
2 billion dollars Mr. Gates gave to charity this year, to the
stimulus his company provides our economy, and to the fact that my
computer running his software is one of the most important objects
in my life. Leave Microsoft alone! Leave business alone! Let the
market decide whose products to buy.
Keep your creepy, altruistic hands off.
Thank you. Did I make my point clear?
Michael Beers
Michael Beers
michaelbeers.com
[email protected]
785-749-3649

MTC-00007659

From: CHARLES E KESSLER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen,
My family nor I have never worked for or had any connection to
the Microsoft Co. and I do not own any Microsoft stock. My only
connection is that I have a personal computer that uses Microsoft
software.
It has always been my opinion that to penalize Microsoft for
improving its software for the benefit of its customers is crazy.
The freedom to innovate and provide better software should be
rewarded not penalized.
The only reason for these lawsuits is to benefit the attorneys
and the politicians who support Microsoft's competitors.
Charles E. Kessler
3000 S. Graham St.
Seattle, WA 98108
206-725-3279

MTC-00007660

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Suit
Dear Sirs:
Please end this action and lets move on!
L.C. Foster
Tampa Fl.

MTC-00007661

From: Rick Salvo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I really don't understand why the Government is trying to
destroy one of the world's best achievements. You can buy a
Microsoft product that is reliable and utilitarian for less than
what most attorneys charge for 2 hours of their time. Where is the
injustice here? Their products will last a lifetime (even though
they will be improved upon constantly). This whole thing is a big
waste of time and money. Just look at what breaking up the phone
company did. We now pay about 5 times as much for less service and
have 2 to 3 bills for what once came in one every month! Even if
some companies are considered monopolies maybe that is the most
efficient way to do some things. Leave Microsoft alone and see if
all the lawyers involved can add some utility to the world in stead
of profits in their pockets. Settle the suit and let's get on with
life and look for things that need fixing.
Sincerely
Rick Salvo

MTC-00007662

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:16pm
Subject: microsoftsettlement
I am voting for the settlement as outlined.

MTC-00007663

From: Ruth A. Lucchesi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly:
I fear that Microsoft will emerge from the Justice Department
and and State anti-trust lawsuits with little or no penalty.
Microsoft's offer to spend money to equip schools with their
brand of software is certainly not a penalty for them...it is
advertising cost. If they are permitted such an easy fate, all of
the creative alternatives to the WINTEL platform will be effectively
crushed. The Apple operating systems long used by schools will be
drowned by the onslaught of Microsoft technology.
Monopoly power in Microsoft's hands is no different than it was
in the hands of Rockefeller and Standard Oil nor Ma Bell. Absolute
power (monopoly) corrupts absolutely.
Please consider the fate of other creative methods for computing
and insist on a penalty for Microsoft that will break their
monopoly. The company should be split into at least two separate and
competing companies...one for software and one for an operating
system. Judge Green's decision to split Ma Bell made possible the
many innovations we have in telecommunications today: cell phones,
pagers, portable phones etc. The next generation deserves the same
opportunity to have similar computing technology at their disposal.
Please split up Microsoft.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Ruth A. Lucchesi
127 Riverside Drive
Northfield, IL 60093-3238

MTC-00007664

From: 4glh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I just wanted to voice my support of the Microsoft settlement. I
do believe that they were unfairly targeted by the government in the
first place, but since they agreed to this settlement it should be
honored! Then the whiners and complainers form both the other
software companies and the Government (who really deserve none of
Microsoft's money.. they already pay their taxes) should get out of
it and leave them alone. Hopefully they can still succeed even after
their unfair and I believe unlawful persecution.
Let their settlement stand.
GL Holmlund

MTC-00007665

From: cliff bristow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This is in reference to the Microsoft Settlement...I am sick and
tired of the mess that special interest groups are creating and feel
that the government could best serve the people of this great nation
by dropping everything. Microsoft has consistently given me all that
I have paid for and so much that I didn't pay for. If I need an
update for a Microsoft product that I use, they have always given me
that update at no charge. Yes, they do charge me if I want to
upgrade (like to Windows XP), but, it is my choice whether to
upgrade or not. Microsoft is not forcing me to do something that I
do not want to do and I for one am tired of people trying to tell me
they are. I am a strong supporter for Microsoft and believe that
they are serving all of my needs.

[[Page 24936]]

Sincerely,
Cliff Bristow
Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of
things not seen.
Cliff

MTC-00007666

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Leave Microsoft alone. Just close out the settlement you already
reached with Microsoft and move on. Microsoft is one of the world's
greatest companies that has done more for benefiting mankind than
almost any other company in the past 10 years. The whole technology
revolution of the 1990's would never have happened without
Microsoft. Microsoft bashers are just jealous of Bill Gate's
success.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw

MTC-00007667

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:25pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Please finally settle this case as per the terms negotiated by
Microsoft and the DOJ and allow Microsoft to get back to work
writing software and stimulating the economy rather than remaining
an unending source of income for the plaintiff's bar. It's enough,
get rid of this case. You are not there to defend Microsoft's
competitors from competion.
Harvey W. Topilow, MD

MTC-00007668

From: John Petrocci
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:24pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I think that the courts intrusion in the way a corporation
manages it business is unwarranted. It became evident the courts
were favoring the competitors. I liked the settlement. There are
many other companies that could be prosecuted if judged in the same
manner that Microsoft was scrutinized.

MTC-00007669

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I fully support the settlement as I fully support Microsoft's
freedom to innovate.
William K. Topper
968 E. 125 S.
Ogden, Utah 84404-4006
[email protected]

MTC-00007670

From: Alan Hagerman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:26pm
Subject: My opposition to the DOJ Suit vs. Microsoft
Gentlemen....While I am by no means an expert, I do believe that
Microsoft was not and is not now, a monopoly. I believe that
companies who were competitors of Microsoft, got the government to
take the lead to bring Microsoft down or at least, break it up.
I did obtain a Bachelor of Arts degree from Miami Univ, Oxford ,
Ohio and a CPCU Degree From the Insurance Institute. My major in
college was economics. I feel that a great deal of Taxpayer money
has been wasted and that the devastation of the stock holdings of
Americans (particularly in the computer field) has been great. I am
pleased that the US Govt Doj program is ending and I feel that the
states who are still holding out should cease and desist their
actions too.
I am a retiree, recently retired from the General Insurance
business. I have never missed an opportunity to vote and I chair the
Conservative Party of Ontario County, New York. Thank you for
requesting my opinion.
Sincerely,
Alan Hagerman, Chairman

MTC-00007671

From: Paul Graeber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Despite the aggressive lobbying efforts of a few of Microsoft's
competitors, the federal government and nine states finally reached
a comprehensive agreement with Microsoft to address the reduced
liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling. This settlement is
tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties involved. Consumers
overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good for them, the industry
and the American economy. The law (officially called the Tunney Act)
requires a public comment period between now and January 28th after
which the District Court will determine whether the settlement is in
the ``public interest.''
Unfortunately, a few special interests are attempting to use
this review period to derail the settlement and prolong this
litigation even in the midst of uncertain economic times. The last
thing the American economy needs is more litigation that benefits
only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation.
Don't let these special interests defeat the public interest.
Paul Graeber
Paul and Sherri
[email protected]

MTC-00007672

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:27pm
Subject: RE; microsoft settlement
I HAVE FOLLOWED THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS AND I
FIRMLY BELIEVE IT HAS FINALLY COME TO A SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE
CONCLUSION. I REFER TO THE LONG AT&T CASE WHICH TOOK MANY YEARS AND
RESULTED IN A HUGE EXPENSE TO THE GOVERNMENT AND SUBSTANTIALLY
INCREASED TELEPHONE USAGE COSTS TO THE CONSUMER. WHAT MAKES IT EVEN
MORE LUDICROUS IS THAT THE SPLIT COMPANIES HAVE MANAGED TO ALLY
THEMSELVES WITH EACH OTHER. THOSE WHO DESIRE TO EXTEND THE
CONTROVERSY ARE DOING IT FOR SELFISH PERSONAL GAIN. LET US AVOID
ANOTHER AT&T DEBACLE.
VERY TRULY YOURS----
DAVID KAUFMAN

MTC-00007673

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
Enough is enough, time for settling this matter once and for
all. Put a stop to these delays so that MS can get back to business.
They have provided a service for us consumers that has been
extremely important in the advancement of computer science. So many
Americans can now and do, have computers in their homes. I believe
without MS this would not have happened.
Why do we want to punish a company that brought USA to the top
of this industry?
Kathleen Laitila

MTC-00007674

From: Erol Fox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:29pm
Subject: please complete the settlement
We've used up enough taxpayer money (my money) to punish the one
company that has done more for consumers and computing than any
other. Let's put an end to the ``don't innovate, litigate'' credo of
the lesser companies. If they'd higher great engineers to make great
products, and get out of the courts, maybe they could compete.
As a registered voter, I'm adding my vote to complete the
settlement and get America moving again towards innovation!

MTC-00007675

From: Patty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I believe the settlement reached in the Microsoft case is fair.
Please make it final and let Microsoft and the American public get
on with life.
Thank you.
P. Lea

MTC-00007676

From: Jimmy.Chan@Dictaphone.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
I am writing this reguarding to the Microsoft Settlement Case as
a consumer, my point of view is the case has been prolong enough. It
is bad for the economy, derail innovation for new technology.
Majorily of the public are aware they do have a choice to choose
from all vendors of software makers and they are more acknowlegeable
reguarding what they buy from a decade ago. Also, technology has
been advanced so fast, even the laws can't keep up and I understand
you want to protect the consumers.
So, let us decide what's best for the consumers and ends all
litigation asap when there is a fair settlement presented on the
table for all parties already. And get the economy moving on all
cylinders again. Thanks for letting me voice my point of view. Good
Luck!

[[Page 24937]]

Jimmy

MTC-00007677

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Come on, lets get this show on the road and finalized. We have
wasted far too much time and money for no real purpose. Let's step
up to the plate and get it finalized. Microsoft is being more than
fair--enought already. Make it happen.
Thanks for your consideration.
Paul E. Monson

MTC-00007678

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom this may concern, The settlement accepted by Microsoft
should be accepted by the Court and Microsoft should be afforded
quiet enjoyment to innovate and pursue its business.
The entire case against Microsoft is study of abuse of
government power against the private sector--Microsoft drove our
high tech economy and dramatically increased productivity in
America. We owe the success of the 90's to the catalyst
``Microsoft''. Bill Gates and his team are the new American heroes
of our capitalist system, Microsoft brought low priced products to
the service of all. Microsoft succeeded against all competitors
world wide--they won the Olympic Gold of Business for America and
the American government tried to punished them due to complaints
from inefficient high price competitors with friends in Congress.
It is time to end this tragic mistaken case and move on. In
addition to settlement the Federal government and especially the
States should apologize to Microsoft and its shareholders.
God Bless a Free America
Carl A. Merz
President
Hartford Aviation Group, Inc.

MTC-00007679

From: Richard Lewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:33pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement --- Richard Lewis ---
[email protected] --- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real
Internet.
I believe the Microsoft settlement was good and fair and that it
should not be overturned by special interests. Litigation is a sorry
method of resolving problems, especially since consumers have not
suffered from Microsoft's actions.
Richard F. Lewis
22 Tollridge Ct.
San Mateo, CA 94402

MTC-00007680

From: John Buttel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
First of all I do not own any Microsoft stock at this time and
am not now nor will I ever be employed by Microsoft. I do use the
products created by the company and have never had a complaint or
felt that I my choices were being limited in any way by monopolistic
practices. Prices for Microsoft products are fair to me the consumer
and services have been more than satisfactory. I have felt from the
beginning of the legal action that my government was suing a company
on behalf of other competing companies that could not do it on their
own. I am not anything more than a casual computer user that has
never found a time or place where I had to use a Microsoft product
when I did not want to. Just because they were able to come up with
the dominant operating system for the personal computer in the right
place and the right time they should not be punished continually for
it. Please let the market place decide what it wants and stop
wasting my tax dollars on litigation against Microsoft. In the Bible
God tells us not to sue one another.
Thank you, my name is John ([email protected])

MTC-00007681

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:34pm
Subject: settlement
I think the proposal to have Microsoft donate software to
schools is excellent. Please lets get this terrible burden to our
economy over with and settle this case. Sun, oracle and there states
will never settle so please make them.
Tim Carey, MD

MTC-00007682

From: Purdue
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Dept of Justice:
Please settle this case as soon as possible. I do not think that
delaying the settlement will solve anything further. Personally, I
see the nine states that are in a quandary as inhibiting and not
expediting legal or just settlement of this case by any further
prolongment.
Barbara Purdue
Citizen USA

MTC-00007683

From: charles bolton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:39pm
Subject: The action currently being pursued against Microsoft
creates a Business
The action currently being pursued against Microsoft creates a
Business climate of uncertainty that prevents them from continuing
to innovate and develop new technology that will provide business
opportunities and create additional jobs, investment opportunities
and other revenue streams. Microsoft has been punished enough by
this long drawn out court action, delays, missed opportunities and
legal costs. Implement the settlement as decided by the Courts.
Continuing to re-open the case on hearsay and speculation is a
violation of the equal protection of the laws of the US Constitution
and probably a violation of due process.
In these un-settled economic and chaotic world climate we need
stability and a level playing field to allow us technology to stay
in the lead. Do you think the Chinese and all the other techno
wantabees are tying the hands of their premier technology companies.
No! Keep it up and you will erode our global technological edge.
There are winners and losers in the market place all the time. I
saw my company that had a good product and technology go down the
tubes due to the dot.com melt down and we were not a dot.com
company. So encourage competition and let people innovate and
computer and stop listening to the cry babies.
Cordially
Charles Bolton
[email protected]

MTC-00007684

From: scott juetten
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:31pm
Subject: MS Antitrust case that never ends!
To Whom it may Concern,
I strongly support the proposed settlement between the Justice
Department and Microsoft. The settlement more than addresses the
concerns brought up at the trial without unduly harming a company
that has perhaps done more for the US Economy than any other. This
settlement will allow Microsoft to keep innovating, while being
sensitive to the needs of competitors and computer makers.
The dissenting states proposed alterations to the settlement are
punitive in nature, and are primarily designed to help Microsoft
competitors at the expense of Microsoft and Microsoft shareholders.
They are designed to prevent Microsoft from innovating, and to make
Microsoft hand over intellectual property to competitors. Microsoft
has shown signs it is very determined to comply with the settlement,
by internally appointing compliance officers. Therefore, I believe
the states concerns are unfounded.
It is my opinion that if the settlement is approved, and this
case is finally closed, that it will help to eliminate uncertainty
in the tech sector of the equity markets. This can also help to spur
economic recovery. Therefore, I do not feel it is in the best
interest of consumers or the country to drag this on further.
Please accept the settlement of United States vs. Microsoft as
submitted by the US Justice Department.
Respectfully,
Scott & Rochelle Juetten

MTC-00007685

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is respectfully submitted that the Microsoft litigation at
bar represents a politically motivated abuse of the American
judicial system. The conclusions and findings of the Court appear to
be an overly simplistic, almost academic, approach that bears little
relevancy to the real world of average consumers such as myself.
It is at best absurd that absolutely no consideration appears to
have been given to

[[Page 24938]]

the fact that the explosion of the internet is almost exclusively
the result of Microsoft's bundling which effectively gave consumers
``all'' they needed to permit them to wander through the internet.
I'd call it one stop shopping-a convenience-not a punishment.
It is equally absurd that no consideration has been given the
issue of whether any of the ``competitors'' who were ``excluded''
actually offered products that were truly innovative and competitive
with Microsoft's products.
Finally, the penultimate absurdity of the litigation is the lack
of any proof that consumers would have benefited financially or
otherwise had circumstances been as the Court believed they should
have been.
If Microsoft is willing to accept the proposed settlement, it
should be approved. The Court and the State Attorneys should not do
any further harm.
Respectfully yours,
William J. Breuer
22 Nassau Blvd
Garden City, N.Y.

MTC-00007686

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
I have been concerned about the Department of Justice lawsuit
against Microsoft. I began using Microsoft products in 1981 when I
bought my first IBM microcomputer. Nothing in my lifetime has
increased my productivity and work enjoyment as much as the
microcomputer and Microsoft software. Their creativity and
entrepreneurship helped millions of other people and me. I have
worked at four universities and most recently as Vice President for
Finance and Administration at the University of Alabama in
Huntsville. I recently retired but was thinking back to 1981 when I
bought six microcomputers and established three residence hall
computer labs at Central Michigan University. I think these were the
very first residence hall computer labs in the country. Many
students benefited from those labs and the Microsoft software we
used. From that early beginning I certainly could not have predicted
the full impact of either the software or the microcomputer. I have
been forever grateful to Bill Gates and all the Microsoft people for
providing such productivity enhancements. I am happy to hear that
Attorney General John Ashcroft has ended the Department of Justice's
three-year antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft with a settlement. I
wholeheartedly agree with the Attorney General's decision to get it
over with.
The complex agreement is full of provisions that will
permanently change the software industry and I personally do not see
a one that I would consider positive. Everything about the agreement
seems to me to be aimed at reducing creative endeavor. The
government even created an ongoing technical oversight committee to
review Microsoft software codes, and to test Microsoft compliance to
the agreement. Nevertheless, I am glad it is over. What disturbs me
is that some government officials and Microsoft competitors aren't
satisfied with the decision and want tighter screws on Microsoft. I
ask, ``How far should the government go on these issues? Free
enterprise needs a break!'' My hope is that Microsoft will produce
even better software in the future that will help all of us. I am
doing some consulting now and my son is a software developer who
uses all of Microsoft's development software. I don't want to see
anything standing in the way of improved software.
Our tax money should be used to deal with the urgent matters of
the day. In my opinion, the federal government doesn't need to take
any more action on this issue. Please end the Microsoft lawsuit
permanently.

MTC-00007687

From: Barbara Gregory
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It's time to settle this mess, for the good of all. Why prolong
it any longer. Prolonging the settlement hurts the economy and
really hurts everyone. Those that don't want to settle are the ones
that are really greedy. Let's get it over with.

MTC-00007688

From: Jim Gasparich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:45pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
To whom it may concern:
As an avid computer user I feel strongly that the settlement
arrived at between Microsoft and the DOJ was fair and in the best
interest of consumers like myself. Further litigation is a waste of
taxpayer money and will not help consumers but rather competitors
and the political careers of ambitious AG's. Please do the world a
favor and end this.
Sincerely,
James P Gasparich, M.D.

MTC-00007689

From: Wendall Mayson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DoJ,
Please, it is time for this issue to be put to rest. The entire
case revolves around the fact that Microsoft's competitors do not
have the will or desire to get out and work hard to develop the
technology to compete with Microsoft. They would rather cry and go
running to the government. Why not, it is easier and cheaper for
them. Microsoft pumps millions of dollars into the US economy. They
have for many years and they can for many more if everyone will just
leave them alone. In addition, Microsoft develops technology that
not only makes the US stronger, but also makes it easier for the
average consumer to do what they want to with their personal
computer. In addition, Microsoft delivers this technology at a
tremendous value.
Thank you!

MTC-00007690

From: SamuelWines
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that enough resources have been expended to date and
that it is time to move ahead. Microsoft is not perfect and
certainly should be monitored but is it not time to move to more
pressing issues?
Sam Wines

MTC-00007691

From: Perry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:48pm
Subject: MS Settlement
I think the Clinton Administration made a terrible mistake in
using the Dept of Justice in trying to break-up Microsoft. MS is the
with the recourses and talent to compete with foreign governments in
the development of new and sophisticated software. The remaining
states have no case and there has no damage to them, therefore, they
should give up there in pursuit of MS.
Thank you for your kind attention to this matter--
Perry Du Long

MTC-00007692

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This has gone on way too long now. PLEASE settle this ridiculous
case and lets move on. Microsoft is an incredible company and I
can't believe I live in a country that penalizes it's citizen's for
being innovative and successful. Its disgraceful the way our
government has treated our own company that we should be proud of. I
used to live in Mexico and down there the people couldn't believe
what the USA was doing. It was really embarrassing to try and
explain it.
SETTLE THE CASE!

MTC-00007693

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:48pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
A reasonable and fair settlement has been reached. Lets stop
seeking to damage the future of one of the few remaining American
companies that is truly a leader in global business and quickly
ratify the settlement.
K. Cadematori 1/2/02

MTC-00007694

From: Jim/Carol Renfrow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DOJ--
Come on guys...it's settled. Let's get on with getting on. If
this case is continued, you are starting to look foolish. Any
further consideration by DOJ against Microsoft will further show how
a few individuals in your department has a personal vendetta against
Microsoft and Bill Gates.
Let American Capitalism and Democracy work....get out of the
way.
Jim Renfrow
2400 Columbine Lane
Montrose, CO 81401-5646
[email protected]
(970)-249-6511

[[Page 24939]]

PS. I'm a 56 year old who has been a registered Democrat all my
life and have never voted for a Republican Presidential Candidate.

MTC-00007695

From: Matias Moyano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:49pm
Subject: hello
i want to say, that i dont like the settlement that the DOJ has
reached with microsoft, this is not helping the consumers, and of
course, not helping the economy at all, microsoft allways had the
winner track on all these computer business, i think that we are
loosing the economy on the computer market with this settlement, the
9 of the 18 states started this because microsoft's MONOPOLIC
tactics, they started this because the POWER AND THE MONEY that
microsoft have win in this computer market is not ALLOWING other
little companys to start or to reach a good market, because
MICRO$OFT can buy the competitor... or add a ``new free feature'' to
the next os, and the competitor will be down and dead, and microsoft
will not spend more money again, this is not helping the AMERICAN
ECONOMY, this is helping MICRO$OFT ECONOMY, i was wondering why? i
can travel to USA proof that im good for the USA economy and the
American Gov. will loan me money to start, so i can grow as a
business in the USA, a country that i love, and i will like to live
on, but what happens here? with this settlement the only thing that
you, DOJ, 9 states of the 18 states are doing is destroying the
chance of people like me or any other little company that wants to
start something in the computer market, why should i do it? if i
will loose against microsoft in one way or another? this settlement
is not protecting the AMERICAN ECONOMY and that is the big
mistake...
because in the way this is handle, 5 years of restricted stuff
for microsoft? what is that? microsoft agreed in other settlement to
pay 10 billons, that shows to you how much they care of that 5
years, in the 6th year they can recover all the money they loose,
please, dont give them the chance to destroy the american economy,
this cant be tolerated!!!! the american economy is not moved by
microsoft, is moved by hundres or 1000! of people that wants to
start something or a business in that great country! but in the way
this is going, microsoft will be able to do whatever they want, that
is bad!! very bad!
microsoft can loose 10 billons of dollars but they know that
they can recover it once again when the 6th year is reached! or by
going back to their tactics! the split of the company was the best
to do!!! but if you cant make them do that then go for the proposed
by the 9 REBEL STATES the open of the code of IE and other things
they had in mind please! do it for ALL THE ECONOMY, not just
MICRO$OFT ECONOMY this move, and the tactics that microsoft allways
used is destroying the little and medium companys arround, and in
some years, you will have nothing, and who can we blame about that?

MTC-00007696

From: Bob Windom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:49pm
Subject: My husband and I are owners of small businesses. I am a
county commissioner as well.
We fully beli My husband and I are owners of small businesses. I
am a county commissioner as well. We fully believe that the
Microsoft settlement is just and fair. It serves us well as
consumers both in private life, the small business sector, and local
government. We, therefore, encourage you to move forward with the
settlement.
Robert and Rita Windom
303 Voves Ave.
Libby, MT 59923
406-293-6764

MTC-00007697

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice, I am in favor of the proposed settlement
in the Microsoft case. It is time to get this settled so the economy
can move forward and recover. Thank you.
James H. Baker

MTC-00007698

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement 1/2/02
In the interest of the public, I would like an agreement on the
current settlement. A few sour grapes would like to prolong this for
there own interest, in the long run this is going to cost us all
money and won't accomplish anything. Not all Microsoft products are
perfect, but they are generally better than whatever else is around!
Sincerely,
Robb McCullough

MTC-00007699

From: Leslie Veres
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am in favor of the Microsoft settlement and see no reason to
prolong this case one minute longer than necessary. Please complete
the settlement process and apply the Department of Justice resources
to more important needs.
Thank you very much.
Leslie L. Veres

MTC-00007700

From: Ann Whalen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:53pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
It is time to settle this case. I am a taxpayer and have paid
for this case to go on and on. As a consumer, I have enjoyed an
operating system that is innovative, creative and an American
product. Let's spend time, money and energy on ``fighting'' cases
that negatively affect the American public.
Thanks, Ann Whalen

MTC-00007701

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs or Madams:
I sincerely hope that the Microsoft Settlement, otherwise known
as the Tunney Act, would be implemented as soon as possible. Any
other course would constitute yet another blow to our struggling
economy.
Sincerely,
C. Lawrence Roberts, M.D.
23720 S.E. 18th St.
Sammamish, Washington 98075-8109

MTC-00007702

From: David Hemler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the proposed settlement between Microsoft and the
Department of Justice is in the best interests of the country and
consumers. I fully support the settlement and hope that you will
enforce its terms.
David Hemler

MTC-00007703

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:56pm
Subject: (no subject)
Please settle the case as soon as possible w/o hurting economy
and citizen of this country.

MTC-00007704

From: kearypk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
I have been asked to comment on the settlement. I think that ANY
settlement hurts both the consumer and our country's economy and
ability to compete worldwide. However, I agree that this settlement
is better that any more litigation and therefore agree with it
Keary Kunz
210 Jennings
Wenatchee, WA 98801

MTC-00007705

From: Scott Cuddihy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe this whole effort is a shame. Large scale damage has
been done to our economy by the USDOJ in the name of anti-trust. The
consumer has not been harmed by Microsoft, the consumer enjoys more
value for its money than any other time in history. This action only
benefits AOL-Time Warner, Sun Microsystems and Oracle to name a few.
Please end this tragedy.
Thank you,
Scott Cuddihy

MTC-00007706

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 11:59pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
TO whom it may concern:
As a consumer, I wish to voice my strong opinion that you settle
this case with Microsoft as it is now. The Tunney act is fair and
needs to be implemented without any further delay. To delay is to
prolong the

[[Page 24940]]

stifling effect on development. Do what is right and settle now.
Timothy Messmer
Anacortes, WA

MTC-00007707

From: marvin thurmond
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:00am
Subject: microsoft settlement
To: us doj
To whom it may concern: Please settle the Microsoft case without
further litigation. I believe this to be in the interest of the
people.
Thanks
marvin c. thurmond
44 camden way
dallas,ga. 30157

MTC-00007708

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wrote a letter to Microsoft some time ago supporting them in
the legal actions. They provided me with this address to continue to
show my support...I agree that the settlement seems to be in the
consumer's best interests, and I would like the litagatin to cease.
Anne Hazelton MD

MTC-00007709

From: Ronald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I Agree with California an the other eight states, that
Microsoft is the one stalling. I agree with California and the other
eight states. Microsoft should split into two or three corporations.
They are a bullies.
Ron Bush
End User
Ronald J. Bush
[email protected]

MTC-00007710

From: SUE BONK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:04am
Subject: Dept. of Justice Put a sock in it! Settle this NOW!

MTC-00007711

From: Jasha Levi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:05am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
It is high time to let Microsoft be and let their competitors
compete in the marketplace instead of trying to have the courts do
it for them.
Jasha Levi

MTC-00007713

From: David P. Schwartz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:05am
Subject: comments on DOJ v. Microsoft
Gentlemen,
I am a professional computer software developer, and I've been
working with and around computers for as long as Bill Gates (we're a
year apart in age). While I have not read the proposed settlement in
detail, I have read many accounts in the technical press that seem
to be in fair agreement, and I thought I'd register my comments. In
a nutshell, I think the proposed settlement is off-point and will
have virtually no impact in the market place or to any useful extent
with either consumers or end users. It's an attempt to compensate
for market forces that were in effect several years ago and that
might not be relevant today.
For what it's worth, here's my opinion.
I agree that Microsoft has created a monopoly. The issue before
the courts was focused on products and product bundling; however,
this is not the culprit. The monopoly that Microsoft has so
effectively created really lies in a distribution channel that
reaches over 90% of all computer users in the North American
hemisphere, and probably a majority of ALL users worldwide. The
problem with that sort of monopoly is that the monopoly holder has
the absolute right to say what goes into that channel. It's not that
the products Microsoft chooses to bundle are good, bad, or
indifferent. The problem is that the consumer is LOCKED OUT from
EVER GETTING THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHOOSE ANY ALTERNATIVES!
Consider this: what if. . . 90% of telephone service was
provided by Qwest? 90% of all grocery stores food distributors were
owned by Safeway? 90% of all gasoline pipelines were owned by Mobil
Oil? . . . And, the owners were also the produces of 100% of the
products that were stocked and sold to their customers--meaning that
all the services accessible by telephone (eg., long distance, voice
mail, internet access, etc) were ALSO owned by Qwest; that 100% of
the products found in a Safeway store were exclusively their in-
house private label brands; that all the gasoline and oil available
through Mobil gas stations was produced and owned by Mobil Oil. It's
kind of scary to think about, isn't it? You'd go to the grocery
store looking for Quaker Brand Oatmeal, and you have to settle with
some gloppy in-house brand because . . . the price of the Quaker
Oats product would be twice the cost of the in-house brand because
the ``house'' would take a few tens of million dollars for the
privledge of ``bundling'' it with their other products. (Look what
they wanted to charge AOL just to advertise their internet service
in Windows XP!) What other company, distributor, news source,
publisher, government, or ANYBODY exists ANYWHERE that has that kind
of market penetration AND CONTROL? I cannot think of a single one,
other than possibly the US Post Office!
What is the impact on me as a software developer? Well, it's
rather difficult for me to gain access to this distribution channel.
In fact, it's practically impossible. AOL couldn't get into the XP
distribution without practically selling their soul; what chance
does a smaller company have? Z-E-R-O. That's the primary impact of
this monopoly--when somebody buys a Compaq or Dell computer, the
only products they get exposure to are from Microsoft (and a few
other Fortune 50 companies that can afford the advertising costs).
And that's mainly because of contracts between Microsoft and the OEM
manufacturers. Even if those contract terms are relaxed a bit,
there's no way that smaller vendors are going to get to bundle their
multimedia players and text editors with those systems!
The first automobiles were available in ``any color you want, as
long as it's black''. That's ok when you're talking about a product
market place with a few thousand or tens of thousands of customers.
But today tens of millions of computers are sold each year.
Nonetheless, as in Ford's time, consumers can get them outfitted
with ``any operating system you like, as long as it's from
Microsoft''. That's NOT a choice!
One measure of the settlement should be this: how do consumers
choices change as a result? Frankly, I fail to see how this
situation will possibly change given the proposed remedies. Assuming
the proposed settlement goes through, in a year or three, will the
average consumer have any more choices to him as to what software
gets bundled and/or installed on his computer? I really don't see
how.
AT&T was broken into several smaller pieces in order to separate
the local phone access from the long-distance networks. Now the so-
called Baby Bells want to get back into long distance markets, and
AT&T wants to get back into local access markets. What solution has
been put into place? Local carriers can get into long distance when
they've opened their local markets to some percentage of competing
carriers, and AT&T can get into local markets when it can
demonstrate that its opened it's markets to some percentage of
competing carriers. That makes sense. The practical impact of that
hasn't been very effective in the market place, but at least it's a
start.
WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE:
As part of the settlement agreement, Microsoft should be
required to include installation-time access to third-party products
with every release of their software. The qualifications should be
that anybody can submit anything as long as it meets certain clearly
defined and easily measured criteria. That means that if AOL thinks
that users might want to get access to AOL at the time they install
Windows XP, the only option Microsoft has is to say ``send us a link
to your web site''.
One thing I believe is that Microsoft will claim that virtually
ANYTHING is an ``integral part'' of the operating system if it suits
their fancy. Rather than argue about it, I'd say ``the proof is in
the pudding''. If Microsoft is including something in the release of
one of their products, then they should allow third parties to
submit similar products as well. In other words, if they want to
claim that an Internet Browser is part of the OS, then they cannot
say that other Browsers should not be include. Conversely, if
somebody wants to bundle a word processor and Microsoft says that's
not part of the OS, then they can refuse to include it. However, if
someone wants to bundle something roughly equivalent to Notepad or
Wordpad, which are acknowledged parts of the standard Windows
operating environment, then Microsoft could not deny them trying to
say that they compete with Word instead.
In order to facilitate this, I'd suggest the establishment of a
web site that is used to

[[Page 24941]]

promote third-party products that compete with things that Microsoft
bundles directly in their products, and require Microsoft to modify
their installer so that it connects to this web site at installation
time and allows users to select among different tools available on
the web site at that time. Some folks might not want to load the
Windows Media Player, and might choose to install the WinAmp Media
Player instead. Why not? Or, they could choose to load Netscape
rather than Internet Explorer as their browser. If Microsoft wants
to play games with the API so competitors' products don't work well,
then play the same game as the phone companies--they can update
their browser as soon as at least one other browser has been tested
to be ``compatible'' with the operating system. Put the onus on
Microsoft to provide CLEAR CRITERIA to facilitate successful
compatibility testing.
I'd also like to see something in the remedy that addresses the
abysmal level of support that's currently available for Microsoft's
products, primarily their 0EM products. Microsoft says that part of
the reason they discount the licenses sold to OEMs is because their
contracts require the OEMs to provide support. However, most don't
provide any useful level of support, typically pushing it off on
their retailers. Very few retailers ever hire the expertise needed
to support Microsoft's products well. This is relevant to the
monopolistic practices issue because it gives Microsoft a way to
dis-own support needs for a very large percentage of its customers.
If Microsoft was required to provide even a minimal level of support
for their products, they would have to raise their OEM prices enough
that the OEMs would in fact be in a position to make a viable choice
among different bundling options. Today the OEMs are simply
prostitutes for Microsoft products that they bundle with their
hardware simply because nobody else can afford to offer them better
deals. OEMs cannot afford to support the software that they bundle
with their computers, and there's a tacit agreement that retailers
and ``certified technicians'' will take up the slack. The truth is,
they don't. But Microsoft gets the benefit of the doubt and is
allowed to continue underpricing their products to OEMs using this
fraudulant strategy. I think that requiring Microsoft to publish a
single, uniform, OEM Price List that only offers volume purchase
discounts and that imposes certain specific support requirements
would go a long way towards solving this problem. (For example, an
OEM can get an additional discount by providing the 800# for their
phone support help desk. No support desk, no discount. Conversely,
Microsoft would be required to provide the support for those OEMs,
hence justifying the higher OEM price.)
Finally, I like the option that several of the States have
proposed that forces Microsoft to publish the source code for the
core Windows operating system and utilities and require them to
license it more openly. This would allow third-parties and even OEMs
to use it to compose different configurations, much the way that
Linux distributions are really different compositions of mostly the
same code bases. It would eliminate most of the issues that have
been keeping the OEMs hamstrung in their abilities to modify the
boot-up processes of their machines, or shipping alternative
browsers. It would also have a beneficial side-effect in that the
OEMs would REALLY be required to support their products!
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
David Schwartz
P.O. Box 34338
Phoenix, AZ 85067

MTC-00007714

From: Richard Tackett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:06am
Subject: what I think
waste of taxpayers money over nothing!!!!! I stand with
Microsoft on this matter!!!!!!!
Rich Tackett
19811 Portal Plaza
Cupertino, Calif. 95014
408 253-7810

MTC-00007715

From: Carl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs
I have been around the computer industry for 40 years and the
one thing that stands out in the early days of the computer is that
no companies were compatible with software or hardware. Now that one
company got it all together and you can buy any hardware or software
and be assured that it will run, the Government wants to shut this
company down and change the whole industry and set it back to 1970.
Microsoft has done it right and the only the disgruntled companies
that can not compete want the Government to penalize Microsoft for
being successful.
There are a lot of small business that rely on Microsoft and
Windows to be the same always. If you do not know how important this
is then you must be talking to lawyers and not Computer Developers
and Users that were there when using a Computer was not this easy.
Carl Odiam
760 343 3759

MTC-00007716

From: helen bloomquist
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:06am
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
I am in favor of the comprehensive agreement with Microsoft, and
vote that the case be settled immediately, without further
litigation.
Helen Bloomquist

MTC-00007717

From: Kurt A. Buechler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings,
As a consumer, I am in support of the settlement of the DOJ
lawsuit vs. Microsoft now on the table. In my opinion, the
settlement is fair and should be enacted ASAP to assist the nation's
economic recovery. I own no shares of Microsoft stock and share this
opinion as a user of products and services of Apple, America Online,
and Microsoft corporations. I am neither an employee nor beneficiary
of Microsoft Corp.
Sincerely,
Kurt A. Buechler
127 Claiborne Cove
Ridgeland, MS 39157
U.S.A.
(601) 853-3638
Kurt A. Buechler
Ridgeland, Mississippi
U.S.A.

MTC-00007718

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let the settlement stand as is and let's get this fiasco over
with. I thought this country was about entrepreneurship and better
mousetraps, etc, but it seems to be moving closer to mediocrity
every day, the result of penalizing anyone who can do something
better than others. End it.

MTC-00007719

From: Richard Tackett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:08am
Subject: microsoft is a great company and has done nothing
wrong!!!!!!!!
microsoft is a great company and has done nothing wrong!!!!!!!!
Rich Tackett
19811 Portal Plaza
Cupertino, Calif. 95014 408 253-7810

MTC-00007720

From: Rev. Bill Mounce
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:08am
Subject: Microsoft Judgement
Sirs,
I am an often frustrated but dedicated Windows' user. I have
been since Windows 2.1. At times I hate it. But I DO NOT believe
Microsoft should be prosecuted for anything. They have been
successful because, while they are not perfect, NO ONE has anything
better. I feel it is their competitors whining because they are
incapable of building anything better that has caused this entire
mess at the taxpayer's cost. It is utterly ridiculous. If the other
programs were better. . . I would definitely use them. But alas they
are not and yet they want Microsoft broken up to cripple the
company. The impact on the PC world and business' everywhere would
be catastrophic. Let's end this nonsense now and let Microsoft do
what they do best. . . build programs for the struggling PC
industry. And if anyone else can build a better ``mouse-trap'', we,
the consumers will judge with out money. Thank you.
Bill & Shandy Mounce
Leesville, LA 71446

MTC-00007721

From: Andy West
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings:
I would like to comment on the proposed settlement to the
Microsoft anti-trust case. I

[[Page 24942]]

have read that certain clauses in section III of the purposed
settlement give Microsoft rights unusual for a guilty party. Section
III (D), in which Microsoft must disclose information needed for the
software of other companies to interoperate with Windows, specifies
in its footnotes that only commercial businesses alone receive these
disclosures. This in effect bars universities, research laboratories
and agencies of the Federal government itself from such information.
Section III (J)(2) gives the right to determine what constitutes
a business--for the purpose of licensing APIs, documentation, or
protocols--not to the Department of Justice but to Microsoft. This
gives Microsoft leave to shut out not just non-commercial entities
such as open-source projects, but even federal agencies in the
course of their own software projects.
These are the only two clauses I have read about, but these two
alone give Microsoft too much power to determine how the keystone of
its monopoly may be used. I would like to ask that the settlement be
renegotiated on at least these two clauses, if not for the sake of
the open-source movement, then for the sake of the agencies and
projects of the Federal government itself.
Sincerely,
Mark Andrew West
202 East Washington Street
Fairmount, Indiana 46928
Tel: 765-747-2919 (work)
Email: [email protected]

MTC-00007722

From: padam2
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:09am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Please use taxdollars to do something usefull.Stop going after
microsoft and use your intelect to stimulate the economy rather than
forever piling up the fees paid to selfserving legal entrepeneurs.I
am retired and will not visit any of the states that continue to
oppose a microsoft settlement.

MTC-00007723

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I encourage you to get this settled. The economy won't start a
full recovery until this is settled. Get it off the books!
Susan M. Swenson

MTC-00007724

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:10am
Subject: settlement
it is time that the issue surrounding Microsoft be completed--if
the Dept Of Justice has concluded thier tsettlement than the
remaining states shoud follow suigt and stop wasting the taxpayers
money--the iswsues of monoply may have some vaility to it--but the
benenfit far outweighs the punishment.
Sincerly
Carl Sanders
200 Elm Street
San Mateo. Ca. 94401

MTC-00007725

From: Khozem Poonawala
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:12am
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
Microsoft, or any company for that matter, should have the
freedom to innovate. The Microsoft case should be settled, now, once
and for all. It is good for America and the american economy.
Khozem Poonawala

MTC-00007726

From: George Aubrey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:21am
Subject: about time
This settlement should go forward and not delay causing more
problems for the consumer. This lawsuit has caused enough problems
by not allowing Microsoft freely develop their software. When
Microsoft begins to gouge the consumer with high prices of their
software then lets get them, in the meantime let the consumer call
the shots.

MTC-00007727

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
I believe that Microsoft deserves fair and unbiased treatment. I
am a supporter of Windows and of Microsoft integrating features.
When the computer companies started, I could not afford the great
features of the Apple and had to stick with a Vic 20. While dating
myself a bit, I found Microsoft to be the only company willing to
bring computing down to a level I could afford and my family could
understand.
Please stop the nonsense. There are bigger fish such as Credit
Card Companies that need to be stopped and Oil and Car companies
that should be providing better alternatives and more fuel efficient
cars. If you have any questions, please feel free to email back.
Thank you,
[email protected]

MTC-00007728

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I can accept the ruling of the court BUT I feel that in an open
society we can only advance if we provide an environment that
supports innovative business strategies. Microsoft started from the
bottom and made many investors wealthy, companies successful and our
nation a leader in the software development. We need to ask the WHY
should we handicap the leadership of current and future companies
like Microsoft and allow them to ride on the coat tails by taking
legal action.
I, as an INFORMED consumer, knew what I had bought and what the
consequences of my decision . . . I assume the responsibility and
accountability of my decisions . . . AND others need to do the same.
Microsoft would not have grown if through individual research their
products were rejected as occurred in many areas of technology.
John Bucelato
301 Willards Way
Yorktown, VA 23693
CC:[email protected]@inetgw

MTC-00007729

From: David Watkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:13am
Subject: no subject>
Dear Sirs: I am anxious to see the case against Microsoft
settled in a manner that is fair to all parties, and does not
infringe upon Microsoft's freedom to innovate, to make creative use
of a free market to aggressively market its widely used and superior
products to the world. I feel that a quick and fair settlement to
this case is in the best interest of the consumers and the economy
of our country. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to express
my opinion.
Sincerely,
David Watkins

MTC-00007730

From: Alex Melli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:15am
Subject: My Opinion
To who it may concern:
Regarding the Anti-Trust case against Microsoft Corp., and the
pending penalty phase, I would like to register my opinion. I do not
agree with the penalties being assessed. The proposed penalties I've
heard, involving Microsoft contributing loads of computers and
software to schools is not appropriate for several reasons:
--It is creating future users (i.e. customers) for Microsoft. It's
like letting a drug company give a vitamin to schoolchildren, making
them dependent on it and creating a future customer.
--This is actually a bonus for Microsoft, giving them more inroads
to the education market!
--The penalty is a minor inconvenience at worst. For that
corporation, it is the equivilent of a parking ticket.
--The were found GUILTY of a violation, so the price to pay should
be a proactive move to repair their damage AND make sure it does not
happer further.
--It is difficult to asses the value of any donated computers of
software. Software should be assessed by physical cost of the
product. So donating a single program does not count as $300, but
the actual cost to the company, probably around $20.
If Microsoft is to be properly penalized, one factor *should* be
an educational donation. The order of money should be in the
hundreds of millions (this is supposed to be a penalty, after all),
and it should be a flat out cash payment. It should be left to the
recipient of the money what to do with it, not the party being
``penalized.'' And why should the guilty part have any say in what
their penalty is in the first place? Iif I think that speeding
ticket is too much, do I have any choice? NO. The law dictates my
punishment, and I'm bound to that. Just because Microsoft is the
biggest player in the game, they are still a player, not the
referee.
BOTTOM LINE: Microsoft needs to be PENALIZED for being found
GUILTY. And

[[Page 24943]]

on a final note, the arguement that breaking up Microsoft would have
too big of an impact on the entire computer industry (and the
economy) should be proof in itself that the company is a monopoly. .
.
Sincerely,
Alex Melli
Laguna Beach, California

MTC-00007732

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:16am
Subject: (no subject)
Microsoft is the Ford Motor Company of the computer business. It
is a shale to penalize a company for being the forward looking and
the brains of the industry. Shame on the justice department, our
government penalizing a company for doing what is correct, for
inventing their components for their use in order to better serve
the public.
Ed Logue [email protected]

MTC-00007734

From: A. Bairamian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement. I support DOJ decision to settle the
Microsoft lawsuit.
This ill-advised lawsuit--instigated by jealous competitors and
presided over by a biased judge--has caused great harm to Microsoft
and the entire tech sector.
It is time to end this useless lawsuit, so Microsoft can go back
to producing and innovating.
A. Bairamian
Glendale, CA.

MTC-00007735

From: David Demland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:17am
Subject: Microsoft Comments
Dear Mrs. Hesse,
Here are my comments about the Microsoft settlement.
David Demland
3506 E. Glenrosa
Phoenix, AZ 85018
(602) 955-3248
[email protected]
Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mrs. Hesse,
I would like to introduce myself. My name is David Demland. I
have been in software development for almost 15 years. I have work
in all aspects of software development during my career. For the
past three years I have been a Quality Assurance (QA) manager. I
have spent most of my career centered on not only the software that
is developed, but the way software is developed. I have worked hard
to get developers to understand that we have to have a goal of ``no
defects'', weather or not we can produce ``no defects''. I Have done
everything from writing code to leading projects and development
teams. I say all of this so that it may be clear that I am an expert
in the area of software and software development. I wish that all
the following comments are taken in that light. The following
comments reflect my feelings about the U.S. Government and Microsoft
settlement.
I wish to thank the U.S. Government and the Nine States that
have settled this long awaited case for all their due diligence and
hard work to finally settle this landmark case. All of us in this
industry are in your debt for this work. If for no other reason than
that we now know that if a hi-tech company can obtain a monopoly
they may break the law all they want to remove competition and
nothing will happen. Not long ago I had the hope that free
competition and a fair business ethic might return to our industry
leader, I now know that will never happen. In July of 1998 there was
a great article in the Arizona Republic about John D. Rockefeller
and Bill Gates. This article was about a new book called ``Titan''
by Ron Chernow. This book told about Rockefeller and the author of
the article showed how much alike Bill Gates was in respect to
business. The only difference is that Rockefeller was not as
successful as Gates in getting the government to accept that a
monopoly should be allow to do what it wants with no penalties. Did
the author of this article know something at that time that the rest
of us missed?
As I have read and followed just about everything that came out
from the trial all the way down to this proposed settlement one
thing has come to mind over and over again--everything being talked
about seems to focus on how Microsoft has conducted it's business in
the past and how to keep them from doing these practices again in
the future. Yet everything points to how fast this industry changes.
This leads to a simple question: How will restricting the way
Microsoft conducted itself in the 90's apply to today's conduct when
the business practices have already changed in the industry as a
whole and Microsoft is doing the same thing but in different ways?
As a guide I will use the Competitive Impact Statement that
describes the way this proposal will work. On page 4 there are two
bulleted points that came to my attention right a way, for reference
they are the third and fourth bullet points. Both of these points
are to ensure that third parties can work with Microsoft products.
At this point there are no time lines mention, but the point is
clear that this will be done so that third parties have time to get
their products to work with Microsoft products. These missing time
lines will need to be kept in mind, there will be times I will
return to these points again.
I find it interesting that on page 14 it talks about the court
findings that: Microsoft threatened to cancel development of its
``Office for Macintosh'' software, which, as Microsoft recognized,
was critical to Apple's business. Microsoft required Apple to make
Internet Explorer its default browser and restricted Apple's freedom
to feature and promote non-Microsoft browsing software, in order to
protect the applications barrier to entry. Yet the current
provisions really do not address this behavior. Of course this would
mean that Microsoft would have to have a monopoly on office suites
was well. Since this has not been an issue in the court it needs to
be looked at to understand the company culture. In the industry
today, for the most part, it has been conceded that MS Office is a
monopoly in the office suite arena 1. Will Microsoft use this tactic
again? This will be certain.
1. Window XP / .NET Microsoft's Expanding Monopoly, http://
www.consumerfed.org/WlNXP--anticompetitive--study.pdf A look at what
has become known as the halloween documents will give a very detail
insight about this issue 2. In the first halloween document
Microsoft implies that a way to beat Unix in general would be ``Fold
extended functionality into protocols / services and create new
protocols''. This look shows that in the same matter that Microsoft
blackmailed Apple they would blackmail the whole industry if they
could. Many thought that Microsoft would never extend a recognize
standard after the halloween documents were published, yet in
Windows 2000, W2K, Microsoft did just that. A well known and
accepted security standard was added to by Microsoft. This standard
is called Kerberos. Once again the use of the Microsoft OS can be
used by Microsoft to change the industry just by doing. Where does
this behavior help the industry and the consumer except just to push
Microsoft's dominance farther? In Wired magazine there was a comment
about the change that Microsoft was going through at that time when
Steve Ballmer was moved into Bill Gates position of presidency.
James Wallace said: 2. These are internal Microsoft documents that
was published on the internet. After these papers were published,
Microsoft not only admitted that were real, but Microsoft went as
far as to say this is the way they do normal business. These can be
found at: http://www.opensource.org/halloween1.html, http://
www.opensource.org/halloween12.html, and http://www.opensource.org/
halloween3.html, Ballmer's promotion ``represents a fundamental
shift away from workgroup computing into not only enterprise
computing but internet computing, which requires a different
sensitivity'' 3. 3. Why Bill Gates Quit His Job, by James Wallace,
Wired December 1998 Could it be that James Wallace saw what Consumer
Federation of America just reported in September 2001 1? Once again
I ask: How can Microsoft be held accountable in a 2001 software
industry using a 1990's industry model when the industry has changed
so much? Are we saying that when an industry changes fast enough a
business that breaks the law should be allowed to because they can
change the industry before any sanctions are handed out to them?
1. Window XP / .NET Microsoft's Expanding Monopoly, http://
www.consumerfed.org/WlNXP--anticompetitive--study.pdf At the top of
page 18 there is a discussion about what Microsoft Middleware is.
The way this has been defined it allows Microsoft to tell the
industry what the middleware is, not what the market believes. To
understand how this effects the industry as a whole I will relate a
story of a problem I ran into that cost the business I worked for
eight months of work and left many of our customers in a bind.
Microsoft create the Microsoft Data Access

[[Page 24944]]

Component, MDAC, to allow Windows applications to use different ODBC
drivers to access databases. When Office 2000 was released,
Microsoft release a new version of MDAC. This version of MDAC was
not compatible with previous version. There were many problems with
Microsoft including a new service pack release that had the same
problems. To make a long story short it took eight months to get the
two fixes to allow both of our products to work with this new MDAC.
This is a very high price for a small business. Does this sound like
a business that is trying to work with well their customers? What
does this story mean to this settlement? Well if Microsoft can say
what is middleware by themselves, what are companies like the one I
work for to do? Are we always going to be expected to keep rewriting
our products to match what Microsoft tells us to do just because
they have a monopoly on the OS and they do not have to care about us
as small businesses?
1. Window XP / .NET Microsoft's Expanding Monopoly, http://
www.consumerfed.org/WlNXP--anticompetitive--study.pdf
2. These are internal Microsoft documents that was published on
the internet. After these papers were published, Microsoft not only
admitted that were real, but Microsoft went as far as to say this is
the way they do normal business. These can be found at: http://
www.opensource.org/halloween1.html, http://www.opensource.org/
halloween12.html, and http://www.opensource.org/halloween3.html,Wait
a minute, this settlement dictates that this will not happen because
middleware API's have to be disclosed. Take a moment at look closely
at this case. Where in this story did anything deal with an API? In
fact just after this Office release became a big enough deal to
developers, Microsoft announced that MDAC would become part of OS 2.
All these problems were backward compatibility issues and this is
just one of the new tools Microsoft can use to control the industry
in the new environment that has changed since the 1990's and this
settlement does not even address these types of issues. Once again I
ask, are hi-tech business allow to break any laws they wish and
because the industry changes so fast there is nothing that can be
done about it?
2. This was at Microsoft developer days here in Phoenix that
later the next year. This problem of Microsoft doing what ever they
want to control the industry appears on page 19 as well. In the last
paragraph a Microsoft Middleware Product mentions the Microsoft's
Java Virtual Machine. Did you know that this no longer exists?
Microsoft, after losing to Sun on the Java Virtual Machine, JVM,
issues has now created a new language and drop support for JVM. How
is this going to effect the industry? Once again because Microsoft
is using it's monopoly power to force business to rewrite all their
products. It is now clear how Steve Ballmer has lead Microsoft into
the internet age the same way as Bill Gates lead Microsoft into the
1990's. Their goal is to keep Microsoft the largest player no matter
how it effects the consumer or other businesses. What do you think
John D. Rockefeller would say today after seeing his business
penalized and Microsoft left to doing it over and over again? What
is the consumer to think? In all this there is another accomplice to
the dirty deeds of Microsoft. This is the government. That's right.
On page 20, the last three lines, the government has told the
country do not start a business in an area that will compete with
Microsoft Middleware it can not be allowed. Where do I get this
from? It is simple, what was the last start-up company able to sell
at least a million copies of their product from the start? I have
yet to find one. So what this means is if there is a start-up in one
of these areas do not worry Microsoft does not have to tell you
anything. So just think, after spending a lot of money you will go
out of business anyway. What a way to go. The government has said as
long as the current competition can stay alive there will be
competition, but once that competition is gone, O well. Once again
thank you for looking out for the consumer. As it is stated on page
21 this ``is intended to avoid Microsoft's affirmative
obligations... being triggered by minor, or even, nonexistent,
products that have not established a competitive potential in the
market''. This is a great thought, if there is no competition, how
can you be a monopoly? How is no new competition good for the
consumer? I find the commits on page 24 at the bottom of the page
rather odd:
Thus, the key to the proper remedy in this case is to end
Microsoft's restrictions on potentially threatening middleware,
prevent it from hampering similar nascent threats in the future and
restore the competitive conditions created by similar middleware
threats. How is this going to be achieved if over a million copies
are required on page 21? This seems to be a contradiction to me. Am
I missing something? As if this has not been technical enough let's
talk about how the dual boot is to be done on page 26. At the
current time W2K was released with a small problem, it does not look
at the BOIS for the hard disk information at boot up time. This
basically renders tools like System Commander useless. So how is a
consumer, or GEM, going to be able to use these tools if Microsoft
bypasses common practices. Where is this address to ensure that
there is no subversion to activating other partitions and making
these tools and their manufactures useless. One argument is that
this is an API that has to be disclosed, but if it takes months for
this information to become available there is no way to have fixes
in place for these companies that create these tools. This will be
looked at close a little later.
On page 27 is one of the best examples of how the government
failed to help support the free market competition. Here the
industry has been told that if you are not one of the 20 largest
OEMs, that Microsoft licenses to, you can be locked out of
information. This is great, once again any small company has been
told that they should not enter into this industry. Does this mean
that the government supports only having large business? If not how
will a small business be able to compete under this section? Even on
page 20 and 28 the message seems to be clear the top 20 OEMs are the
only ones that count.
On page 32 there are two issues. At the bottom of the page it
talks about dual boot systems being allowed. As I have already
talked about, how it this going to be handled if Microsoft continues
to bypass standard practices on boot up? If tools like System
Commander can be rendered useless what is going to keep Microsoft
from allowing this same issues on a dual boot system to discourage
OEMs from shipping these systems. Would it not have made more since
to ensure that Microsoft uses the industry standards to ensure they
do not subvert this issue? I think a very important issue has been
missed in this area.
The best part of this page is at the end of the first paragraph.
I would like to thank you for penalizing all of us in the industry
for Microsoft abusing their monopoly power. I find it outrageous
that is was agreed that OEMs must use software substitutions that
act like the Microsoft software that it is being substituted for. Is
it assumed that these OEMs write their own software? If so that is
wrong. There are many companies, like the small ones I have worked
for, that do this software and you have just told them if it cost
tens of thousands of dollars to rewrite their software do it if they
want an OEM use your software in place of Microsoft. What did these
businesses do wrong to deserve this penalty?
On page 43 it talks about Microsoft putting information on their
MSDN for APIs and other important information that has to be shared.
I found this amusing because it does not say how this information
should be handled on MSDN. In fact this has allowed Microsoft a
great way to make more money off of developers. They can put this
information on MSDN in a hidden place and when developers call to
find it they can be charged to find out where it is. What a penalty
for breaking the law.
Now we come to the timeline items. On page 35 the proposal for
the releasing of the XP APIs is a great try, but it still gives
Microsoft about a year lead time to get a head of all the other
developers. I have created, and maintained, this type of
documentation at two different businesses in my career and in every
case I have had this type of documentation before we got to far into
the early stages of testing. Microsoft should already have this as
well. It should not take more than two or three months, at most, to
polish these API documents to make them public. I find it hard to
accept that the definition of this timeline, for documentation, is
different for the middleware products. I have a real problem with
timeline of the last major beta before release before the first
release candidate for the middleware products. In most cases this
will be only a couple of months before the final release. This will
make it hard for other developers to make changes to work in a
timely matter. Especially when there are multimillion lines of code
in many products today. Please see above about the MDAC story. The
standard that the industry tends to follow for a beta test is best
put: The product has completed all of the major features content
that has been planned for the final release... During the beta
release, the product

[[Page 24945]]

will be tested for it functionality, specifically with regard to
defects.
1. Michael E. Bays--Software Release Methodology 1999 Prentice-
Hall This definition makes it clear that the industry believes that
at the time of the beta test all functionality is complete, this
means that the APIs are complete as well, otherwise it would be an
alpha test and the product is still changing. Does this timeline not
allow Microsoft to hold back information for middleware APIs until
it is hard for competitors to be ready at the same time as
Microsoft? How does this keep Microsoft from locking out software
like Netscape? Please see page 12. Pages 36--38 deals with protocols
but it misses the fundamental problem with Microsoft and how they
can hurt the industry and the consumer. How can protocols be talked
about without including industry standards? Microsoft has shown that
it will do what ever it takes to keep their monopoly. This has been
well proven in the trial court level and upheld in the appellate
court level. Yet this fact seems to have been over looked when it
comes to the use of industry standard protocols by Microsoft.
Microsoft has had proposals internally placed on the table to extend
common protocols to help lock out competitors 1.
1. Halloween documents http://www.opensource.org/
halloween1.html, http://www.opensource.org/halloween12.html, and
http://www.opensource.org/halloween3.html, This issue was thrust
into the fore front when W2K was released with Kerberos. Microsoft
had extended this common industry standard to try to lock out other
Unix computers. Microsoft's extension to this industry standard is
also a major part of the European case against Microsoft. It also
shows how much power Microsoft has to destroy computer connectivity.
Why is it that nothing has been said about Microsoft doing as so
many of the smaller businesses, in this industry, must do have to
have these standards changed? That is make Microsoft have to go
before these bodies to get these standards changed instead of being
able to dictate to the whole industry a new standard. If this issue
is not addressed Microsoft will be able to use this ability to
change standards to continue their predatory monopoly actions even
in the new Internet age. Can one company be allowed to dictate to
the whole world how business should be ran? Should not Microsoft be
forced to use common standards so that all competitors will have a
chance?
On page 39 the whole world has been told that Microsoft does not
have to disclose protocols if these disclosures would compromise
system security. Listed items are anti-piracy, anti-virus, software
licensing, digital rights management, encryption and authentication
features. First of all, Microsoft is not the only business that has
had find ways to handle anti-piracy, antivirus, software licensing,
and digital rights management. Every business that produces software
has had these issues and all of them have found a way to make them
work. The only difference is that all the other business have not
always be able to have both the OS and the application under their
control. So these businesses have turned to common industry
standards, and practices, to find a solutions. Why should Microsoft
be able to change these standards just because they are the largest
software company and control the OS and office suites? As far as
encryption and authentication, how does this section protect the
industry and consumer from being blackmailed by Microsoft into lower
or less secure standards?
How can this type of control and influence be bad for the
consumer? Bill Gates once said to the German magazine (FOCUS) that
bugs (defects) are unimportant 1. Also Microsoft, itself, has
documented that there were 63,000 known defects in Windows 2000,
W2K, when it shipped 2. If it is more important to Microsoft to get
the product out than to get a properly running product out, how can
Microsoft be trusted to do a protocol standard right without other
industry leaders giving input?
1. FOCUS Oct 23, 1995--found on-line at http://www.cantrip.org/
nobugs.html
2. Microsoft, Who Let the Bugs Out? osOpinion.com Oct 23, 2001--
found on-line at http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/14306.html Page
40 allows Microsoft to enter into a contract with a developer that
limits that developer from promoting other competing software if
such limitation are reasonably necessary. The problem here is what
does this really mean. For example, if Microsoft is working on a
contract with a business that has some existing file converters to
bring in other word processing formats into Word for Windows,
WinWord, can Microsoft restrict the contracting company from
exporting from WinWord so that there is no way to convert out of the
Microsoft product? How does this wording work in the internet
business model?
On page 45 the second paragraph talks about removing middleware.
How is this effected with help files? No matter what browser is
installed on a Microsoft computer, when the HTML help system is
invoked Internet Explorer, IE, is the only browser used to display
the HTML files. This means that no matter what browser is used to
surf the internet IE must be present for HTML help to work. How does
this section handle this issue? Does this not allow Microsoft to
continue this practice?
Also on this same page it is talked about the technical changes
to W2K and XP, yet it only gives a timeline for the XP changes. What
happens to W2K? There are many consumers that have privacy issues
with XP so it is very important that W2K changes must be made and
W2K must be maintained.
On page 48 it states that Microsoft can not prompt a user for
OEM custom changes for 14 days. Does this mean that Microsoft can
then prompt the user all the time until they get so feed up with the
prompts they allow Microsoft to change the computer configuration?
Why is this even in the document? Is Microsoft saying that if an OEM
sets up a computer that users are to stupid to change the factory
settings? Why not leave users alone altogether? I give you all a
hand for the concept of the TC. This is a great way to ensure that
Microsoft abides by the settlement without creating a whole new
branch of the government to do the oversight. I have just one
question: Who's stupid idea was it to add the section on page 58
that the TC information can not be used in any proceeding before the
Court? Is this a ``get out of jail free card'' for Microsoft? Are
you trying to make it cost the tax payer more money to make sure
Microsoft plays by the rules? Is this a loophole that Microsoft can
use later so that it can get off the hook after it has failed to
follow this settlement? What am I missing? This is something to lead
the public to believe that Microsoft is paying a price for breaking
the law when it is doing nothing but rewarding Microsoft for do
something that no other company has been able to do; break the law
and get away with it? This whole section should be removed.
Again on page 60 it looks like there is another loophole that is
good for Microsoft and not for the consumer. It says that after the
initial five years of this settlement the Plaintiffs may ask for a
two year extension. What happens if Microsoft still has problems in
the two year extension, nothing? What is the public to think about
this? If Microsoft puts up with the TO long enough that everything
will go away not matter what? Is this fair for a company that broke
the law? On page 62, where there is a list of relief that was looked
at but not part of the settlement. In this list there were a couple
of items that I find hard to believe were not part of this
settlement. I find these two issues to hard to skip over with the
weight of what this outcome has on the consumer and the industry as
a whole. The first one not ensuring that Microsoft includes non-
Microsoft middleware in its distribution of the Windows Operating
System. The example here was the Java Virtual Machine, JVM. I go
back to what I said before, are we to believe that only Microsoft
knows where the direction of the industry should be going? Or should
we take it that Microsoft should be allowed to find new ways to
maintain it's monopoly at the expense of the consumer? What is it so
hard to about Microsoft being require Microsoft follow industry
standards like any other business? Is everyone afraid that Microsoft
would have to compete with more competition if this is done? After
all is it unreasonable for Microsoft to lower the barrier to entry
since that was one of the key points of this whole case?
The other item in this list was requiring Microsoft to fully
support industry standards. Was this dropped because to force this
on Microsoft would also allow other competitors into the market
place? Does this point to this whole settlement being nothing more
than smoke and mirrors? These two items alone could have great
impact on restoring competition to the market. How could these have
been overlooked, or removed from the list? Now lets look at some of
the other overlooked problems with this settlement. Right now
Microsoft seems to have a lot of security problems. This may be
misleading in some ways. What I mean is that Microsoft may not be
any worst at security than any one else, but because there is no
other real competition it makes Microsoft a perfect target
1. This would lead one to believe that for the public's best
interest there needs to be a viable option to the Windows OS. This
will

[[Page 24946]]

never happen as long as Microsoft continues down it current path of
total monopolization of the PC OS. This is where this settlement
fails the most. I would hope that this is not that hard to see and
understand, am I wrong?
1. Good security administration is crucial by Madeline Bennett,
IT Week Friday October 19, 2001. On Page 10 of Competitive Impact
Statement there is a perfect commit that says that users want to
know the OS will have the needed applications before investing in an
OS. This is important observation. Where does this settlement help
towards that goal? Or is it that this goal is to big of a price to
be paid for hurting the consumer and destroying competition with
predatory practices? How could the Declaration of Carl Shapiro be
overlooked when he said that one of the reasons that Linux failed to
be competition to Windows is because of the lack of popular
applications like Microsoft Office 1. This alone would allow
competition back into this industry. So why not have Microsoft port
its office suite to Linux? Would this not help restore true
competition without rewarding Microsoft for breaking the law? If
Microsoft had to port this suite and was required to support it on
the Linux platform for three years would not that do much better
over all? Just think, if Microsoft had a product line on Linux, it
would be less likely to ``expand'' industry protocols to lock out an
OS that it would be trying to recover their expense for porting to.
What would be wrong with this? Or are you saying that the industry
and consumer are not important in this matter?
1. Declaration of Carl Shapiro page 3. These types of relief
would go very far to really help innovation by allowing true
competition back into the market place. This is what this industry,
and the consumer, need. Overall the current settlement penalizes
other business for Microsoft's conduct and it even rewards Microsoft
for breaking the law. This is a shame. I hope that this is reject
and a real settlement that benefits the industry and consumers is
reached.
In the above commits it should also be clear that this
settlement, as currently proposed, will do nothing in keeping
Microsoft from using predatory practices with the way the current
market is moving. We can not expect reliefs based off of the way the
industry worked in the past to apply to the way it does business
today when it is a different business world and the current
settlement does not take that into account. This must not be
overlooked if real relief is to be made for the consumer and for the
industry as a whole. There are many ways that this settlement
encourages Microsoft to continue its current goals for removing all
competitors from the market and that means there was a lot of wasted
money to get a court ruling that does not change anything. At what
point will it finally be accepted that Microsoft will only learn a
lesson if it required to give up some of its monopoly power? When
will the industry and the consumer finally be defended?
Thank You,
David Demland

MTC-00007736

From: Robert Corkrum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:18am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Move on!!!!!!!!!!The few attorneys generals holding up this
settlement need to understand that everyone but them has moved
on.It's a new economy stupid! thanks Bob

MTC-00007737

From: ginih
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:19am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I disagree with the tearing apart of Microsoft. It seems if
anyone in the U.S. comes up with a wonderful invention there is
always someone who is jealous of them. They want a part of it & so
they sue. Look at A.T.T. the little companys wanted a part of them.
So they sued every time they started to go bankrupt. They also use
the Bell Co. lines at very little cost. Do you think we could go
into McDonalds & rent their grills for very little money? I don't
think sooooo. It's time to tell the sue happy people to crawl back
in their holes. If they can't come up with good ideas of their own,
don't let them sue & steal from the Co.'s that are contributing to
the economy. Let Microsoft alone, they are the creative Company.

MTC-00007738

From: Charlotte Kenworthy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello, It is my opioion that the Microsoft settlement is a fair
and just settlement. It is time to move on and put this whole ordeal
behind us. Competitors and special interest groups have carried this
far enough...let's abide by given settlement. Charlotte Kenworthy

MTC-00007739

From: CANDA
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:21am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I think it is time for the government to leave Microsoft alone.
Why not go after the drug manufacturers and their deals made with
insurance companies. The under the counter deals are not in the best
interest of the consumers and should be covered by anti trust laws.
Microsoft is o.k. and even though I do not use their internet
services, they continue to give me excellent service. I agree with
Ted Kennedy when he said the case against Microsoft sounded like
``sour apples''.I will continue to use the products of Microsoft
even if they are more expensive because their products are more user
friendly. Thank you,
Carolyn
Hinton

MTC-00007740

From: Brent Kopp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement as proposed should be accepted by both parties.
True, MS is a tough and ruthless competitor. That will force anyone
attempting to break their dominant position to develop a new
software or computing method that will be a significant improvement
in order to impress the using public. The ``market'' is a rough and
tumble setting, the higher the reward the greater the energy and
risk taking and the more likely chance of really better, as opposed
to merely different, products that will benefit the using community.
Their are times when the MS programs drive me crazy with their
uncorrected programming errors, syntax mistakes and just sloppy
lines of code. But I trust the competitive market more than a
government agency to bring me relief. Also, in my opinion the former
lawyers in the anti trust division gave too much credence to the
complainers(Netscape etc.,) who perhaps influenced this entire
affair thru their campaign contributions and their political allies.
It has been sordid from the start, so let's get it put to bed.
Brent Kopp
[email protected]
EarthLink: It's your Internet.

MTC-00007741

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:22am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
In my opinnion, government should get out of the way of free
enterprise and let it do the job it does so well!! Microsoft has--
and is--providing a good product at a fair price. Consumers are not
unsatisfied!
The ones unsatisfied are those who don't have the ability to
compete.
Nels

MTC-00007742

From: Clyde w. Butler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi ! I would like to see the Microsoft case settled and let them
have the right to innovate ! Thank you !!!!
Clyed W. Butler
[email protected]

MTC-00007743

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
the government should settle, Micorsoft has been great for the
ecomomy of the Northwest and has enabled business that use computers
more competative.
H.D. McBride

MTC-00007744

From: William C. Caccamise Sr. , M.D.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has revolutionized the computer field and the
practical use of the Internet by millions of people. It is the Jewel
of the American capitalistic system. I have always felt that Mr.
Gates should be given the highest civilian award offered by our
government. The aggressive attack on Microsoft by the Clinton
Administration was a disservice to the computer world and society
itself.

[[Page 24947]]

I know that my entire family including my grandchildren, my
children, my wife, and myself--all avid computer users--are indebted
to Microsoft for making the computer world and The Informational Age
available to us in such a practicable manner. We hope that the DOJ
will allow Microsoft to proceed freely in its unending goal of ever
improving our access to the world of computers, software, and the
Internet.
Thank you Microsoft--and Mr.. Gates--for making the retirement
years of this 78 year old physician years filled with excitement and
learning.
Sincerely,
William Charles Caccamise Sr, MD
12 South Pittsford Hill Lane
Pittsford, New York
[email protected]
Telephone : 1-585-381-3855
FAX: 1-585-385-1355

MTC-00007745

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I urge you to let the settlement regarding Microsoft go through
for all sta

[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%3AX02-190503. Public record. Not legal advice.