United States v. Microsoft Corporation; Public Comments; Notice (MTC-00016173 - MTC 00020177)

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

[Notices]

[Pages 26208-26843]

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

[FR Doc No: X02-40503]

MTC-00016173

From: Sage Major

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:41am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hello

I am a software engineer in San Diego California. And as such I

am very much involved with computers. What I have recently heard

about the Governments choice to settle the Anti trust case against

Microsoft is disheartening. I expected that the government would

take put the consumers who have been harmed by Microsoft first. In

the last 5 years I have purchased 8 new computers, each one came

with a Microsoft operating system, of those 8 I still use 3, but

only 1 is running a Microsoft OS, OS as part of their bundling

requirements I effectively purchased 8 copies of the same software

to run on one computer. I believe that as part of their settlement

Microsoft should be required to follow open standards prevented by

law from extending those standards in a closed fashion. For example,

the Keberos spec, which they embraced then changed so that their

OS'' would not inter operate properly with other operating

systems such as Solaris and Linux. They should also be required to

open their standards for many of their products such as the

networking so that SAMBA can be made to work properly with windows.

Also I feel that Microsoft should be required to open the source

of the operating systems they are no longer supporting, thus

allowing anyone to fix the problems that Microsoft will no longer

fix, I am not suggesting that they give away their current or

previous OS (XP and 2000/ME) but rather that they open windows 95,

98 and NT which they no longer support.

Respectfully

Sage Major

Sage Major Software Engineer

Email: [email protected]

web: http://www.vertel.com

Phone: (858) 824-4158

Mail: 5825 Oberlin Drive suite 300

San Diego CA, 92121

MTC-00016174

From: Keith Hudson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:41am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe that what is going on is shameful. I do not see the

place for politics in legal matters.

Fact: Microsoft has hurt people. They have hurt you and have

hurt me. Was this law suit brought forth on legit reasons? Or was it

just to find a temporary source of revenue?

I get the feeling it is like the lawsuit brought against the

tobacco companies. We now have a legal to sell class 1 carcinogen,

which requires no licensing to purchase. Why because people do not

matter even when the issue is cancer and death. What matters is

money (note 1). So given that Microsoft only hurt people and no one

actually died... I expect this to end up just the same.

I want Justice. Will I get some???

I can guess the answer...No.

Microsoft owns you.

Keith Hudson

(Registered Voter)

note1: Some people have referred that the ill effects of lost

economy/jobs to certain areas are reason enough to maintain the

tobacco industry. I stand affirmed that the people and economy of

tobacco is smaller then the population dying from it.

MTC-00016175

From: Chris Vargas

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:40am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I'm writing to express my strong concern that the proposed

settlement with Microsoft does not go far enough to punish Microsoft

for proven monopolistic activities. Not only that, it actually

includes wording that could threaten other operating systems''

existences, thereby strengthening Microsoft's monopoly.

In a recent column, industry expert Robert Cringely points out

that Microsoft will not have to open its APIs to non-commercial

entities; that could easily be seen as allowing Microsoft to lock

out Linux and FreeBSD developers from allowing access to Microsoft

servers via a tool called Samba. This same tool allows my Macintosh

to access Microsoft servers; it could easily be locked out if this

settlement goes through. Everyone in the computer industry knows

that Microsoft takes advantage of its monopolistic position on a

daily basis. We hoped that the remedies would try to reign Microsoft

in. These remedies do not do so, and in fact set up the possibility

of killing off one of the best non-Microsoft OSes currently

available.

Christopher Vargas

2205 N Pollard St

Arlington VA 22207-3813

MTC-00016176

From: Miles Pickering

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:41am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am opposed to the proposed Microsoft settlement. My main

objection is that the settlement lacks sufficient enforcement

provisions and is an invitation to further legal proceedings that

could take decades to resolve. A three person team is hardly

sufficient to monitor the activities of a multi thousand person

organization.

There are many other objections that I have, but that is the

simplest.

Thank you,

Miles Pickering

851 Florida St.

San Francisco, CA 94110

www.4by6.com

MTC-00016177

From: Robert L. Scala

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:41am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Justice Department,

I believe that the proposed Microsoft Settlement falls short of

its goal of restoring comptition to the operating systems and

middleware markets. I have been a software engineer for 22 years,

and have watched this nascent industry go through many changes. One

of the distressing developments is software vendors'' use of

their products as agents to influence customers'' future

purchases. This is similar but not identical to electric razors

working better with ``compatible'' razor blades, thus

influencing future purchases. The difference is that while other

companies can easily produce competing razor blades, software is so

complex that producing a compatible product can be impossible.

I have been frustrated by the proprietary protocols of many

software products produced by many companies over the years, not

just Microsoft. But those products were all vulnerable to competing

products that sold both razor and blade. But with Microsoft's

monopoly on operating systems and office software, effective

competition is impossible. If microsoft makes a better razor, that's

fine, as long as others can compete to make a better blade.

The problem I see with the proposed settlement is that in some

ways it also acts as an agent to ensure that customers purchase more

Microsoft products. This may sould like a bit of a stretch, but the

fine print may grant Microsoft broad powers, such as certifying the

authenticity and vitality of a competitor (III.J.2.c) before

providing that competitor with information required in other

sections of the agreement.

This settlement stinks. Like the Trojan Horse, it looks good on

the outside, but the details make it ineffective, and give Microsoft

some powers it did not have in the first place. It's time that the

software I buy stops working against me. That's what I hoped from

this agreement. The whole agreement needs to be tightened up. In

particular: P.III.A This section should include a prohibition

against retaliation against OEMs that supply a single non-Microsoft

operating system on their products. As a customer, I would like the

option to purchase a computer from a major vendor with a non-

Microsoft operating system, without also purchasing Windows.

I believe that this section misses the mark because dual-boot

machines are niche-market items and not a threat to Microsoft's

operating systems monopoly. It is the single-boot, non-Microsoft

machines that challenge this monopoly. P.III.J.1.a These exceptions

should be eliminated, as true security does not depend on the

obscurity of the protocols. Secure systems, and the trust of the

general public, are better served by using only published and well

documented encryption systems. P.III.J.2 This is the big one. This

provides Microsoft the vehicle to withhold APIs and interoperability

protocols from, for example, vendors of free software. Since

recently Microsoft has declared Linux the single biggest threat to

Windows, it is strange that Microsoft will be allowed to shut out

this important segment of the competitive landscape.

I don't see any added burden to Microsoft if they are required

to put the APIs and interoperability protocols in the public domain.

That way their main rivals will be able to compete fairly in their

effort to provide customers better software. And isn't this what the

whole Settlement Agreement is all about? I know little about

antitrust law, so I can't comment on the details of this antitrust

case or the appropriateness of the

[[Page 26209]]

proposed remedy. But I know software, and I'm sure that if the goal

of the proposed remedy is to restore competition to the software

industry, it will fail.

Sincerely yours,

Rob Scala

Robert Scala

Scala Systems-custom software development

860-443-5702

http://www.scalasystems.com

MTC-00016178

From: Mark Shepard

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:42am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

As a software engineer with over 10 years experience, I believe

the Proposed Final Judgement should -NOT- be approved,

for the following reason: The PFJ too narrowly defines

``API''. Undocumented APIs allow Microsoft to prevent

third-parties from creating software for Windows. Instead, the PFJ

should require this: Each time and in every case where Microsoft

releases ANY ``object code'' to anyone or any group,

Microsoft should also be required to release ANY AND ALL source-code

which defines the INTERFACES the aforementioned ``object

code'' depends on, requires and/or optionally is able to use.

Further, this ``interface source-code'' (a.k.a.

``header files'') should be released under a license which

allows unrestricted copying, re-publishing in any form, and use of

the information by anyone, whether part of the original group to

which Microsoft released it or not.

I believe the current definition of API is such a serious defect

in the PFJ that it alone will negate the value of the entire PFJ.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Mark Shepard

Software Engineering Consultant

Member IEEE and ACM

B.S. Computer Engineering

Dallas, TX

[email protected]

MTC-00016179

From: damon.schmidt

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

Date: 1/23/02 10:43am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Problems with the Proposed FInal Judgment in summary:

* The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing

operating systems

* Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by using

restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet the

PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this part of the

Applications Barrier to Entry.

* The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and

Provisions

* The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs,

but it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important

APIs are not covered.

* The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft

Middleware with competing middleware, but it defines

``Microsoft Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version

of Windows might not be covered at all.

* The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a

competitor's product-but Microsoft is replacing Java with

.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET

with competing middleware.

* The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it

defines that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP

Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-

Box-operating systems that all use the Win32 API and are

advertized as being ``Windows Powered''.

* The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical

requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware

simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and

not informing ISVs.

* The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to

ISVs so they can create compatible middleware-but only after

the deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is

compatible.

* The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API

documentation-but prohibits competitors from using this

documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with

Windows.

* The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation

about the format of Microsoft Office documents.

* The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software

patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible

operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not

infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away

potential users.

* The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms

currently used by Microsoft

* Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep

Open Source apps from running on Windows.

* Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep

Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.

* Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large

companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number

of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system-even

for computers running Linux.

(Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 consent

decree.)

* The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities

Historically Used by Microsoft

* Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional

incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from running on

competing operating systems.

* The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards

OEMs

* The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that

ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but

no Microsoft operating system.

* The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small

OEMs- including regional ``white box'' OEMs which

are historically the most willing to install competing operating

systems-who ship competing software.

* The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs)

to OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket

PC systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-

compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other

areas.

* The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective

enforcement mechanism.

Therefore, the Proposed Final Judgment is not in the public

interest, and should not be adopted without addressing these issues.

sincerely,

Damon A. Schmidt

MTC-00016180

From: dan gavin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:43am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This settlement is an awful bad idea.

Not only are you letting Microsoft buy a verdict from their

software, but now they are also begenning to try to monopolize even

more markets with their closed API Windows Media format that DVD

makers are starting to support.

All I ask, is that you please look into just what Microsoft is

trying to do with their posistion with their market power to

monopolize more than just software.

Thank you for your time.

Dan Gavin

339 North Ave.

Wood-Ridge, NJ 07075

MTC-00016181

From: Thomas Hays

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:42am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Six word summary: The settlement is a bad idea.

Details:

I work for as a network administrator for a company that

predominately uses Microsoft software for our business. We recently

purchased Office XP and Windows XP Pro with some new Dell computers.

The problem that I have with this is that resellers are calling me

constantly (most recently to say the BSA is doing an audit in our

area, and asking if I'm sure my company is legal?) and

``advising'' us to discard our OEM license and buy the

``real'' open license. Of course they want to sell us

upgrade-assurance which is the first step in subscription based

software.

Want another problem area? Look at the security mess we have to

deal with concerning Outlook. It may look nice and be intuitive, but

is it secure? Even after what 5 or 6 years of development, it's

still not secure. Yet Outlook is the predominant email software in

business because it comes ``bundled'' with several

versions of Office. I believe it could be successfully argued that

Netscape/Mozilla, Eudora, or Pegasus mail are all more secure, yet

how many people use them. How many people even know there are other

email software packages besides Outlook.

A final complaint, the push of passport. With Microsoft's

terrific security record I'm really thrilled with the idea of all my

logins and a considerable portion of my personal information being

stored by them so I can access common financial packages like

[[Page 26210]]

Microsoft Money (the newest version nags you to set up a passport

account) or Ebay and other web sites which are offering Passport

logins.

What would help the consumer the most would be competition.

Competition would drive us towards more affordable and better

written software.

Thank you.

Thomas Hays

[email protected]

MTC-00016182

From: Greg Wold

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:42am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To: Renata B. Hesse

Antitrust Division

U.S. Dept. of Justice

601 D Street NW

Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20530-0001

Ms. Hesse,

I wish to add my voice to the chorus of those disappointed by

and opposed to the proposed settlement with Microsoft Corp. for

their proven anti-competitive practices. I find the proposed

settlement to be inadequate, and hope that it will be thrown out.

The current proposal provides for no substantive punishment for the

proven, illegal activities carried out by Microsoft; it provides no

effective constraints on Microsoft's future practices; and it

provides no effective means of enforcement for it's provisions.

Sincerely,

Gregory R. Wold

96 Katie Dr.

Langhorne, PA 19047

MTC-00016183

From: Bill Dugan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:48am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The settlement is a bad idea.

Bill Dugan

MTC-00016184

From: Eric Stechmann

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:42am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

In my opinion, the situation is precisely this:

Microsoft acted illegally. They knowingly and flagrantly

violated US antitrust regulations. The company ``thumbed its

nose'' at the laws of the United States. Justice demands that

their punishment be swift and severe. Microsoft must be shown that

such violations can not and will not be tolerated.

Sincerely,

Eric Stechmann

These opinions are mine and are not necessarily those of my

employer.

MTC-00016185

From: Timothy Miller

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:42am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Department of Justice:

I wish to register my objection to the proposed settlement

between Microsoft and the DOJ.

As capitalists, we recognize how vital it is that there be

vigorous competition in every marketplace. Consider the competition

between Intel and AMD. I suspect that without AMD, Intel would be

putting more energy into maintaining its already huge market share,

rather than putting that energy into improving their products. The

result of the competition has been that Intel and AMD have been

fighting tooth-and-nail to compete based on the QUALITY of their

products, and everybody wins. Microsoft has no such competitor.

There is no one who directly competes with Microsoft in the same

market, so Microsoft gets comfortable and lazy and takes action only

to maintain their position by precluding any other company from

entering their market. Consider the recent events involving

LindowsOS. Microsoft's primary concern is that since LindowsOS can

run Windows software, it might compete with them, so they will find

any excuse they can to tie their would-be competitor up in court so

they can't function.

And that is the crux of the matter. Microsoft has been declared

a monopoly, and they have been found to have acted

anticompetitively. Desptite this, they continue to act as they

always have.

The objective of the DOJ and the Court should be to protect

competition, because competition is what benefits consumers and the

economy. I have read the Proposed Settlement, and I, like everyone

else I know, have found it to be filled with loopholes. It does

nothing to repair any of the past damage that Microsoft has caused,

and it does very little to prevent them from acting inappropriately

in the future. In fact, it has wording that implicitly protects

Microsoft from revealing trade secrets to Open Source developers.

The Open Source movement is the one of the few thing that has been

able to survive and grow against Microsoft in recent years, mostly

because there's no one specific that can be sued into oblivion. I

was very sad the day I read that the break-up order had been taken

off the table by the Bush administration.

Honestly, I think the Proposed Settlement does more harm than

good because it gives Microsoft license to continue their past

behaviors with government sanction. The Settlement is not helpful to

consumers and should be rejected.

Thank you.

Timothy Miller

MTC-00016186

From: Aaron Patterson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:43am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft

antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does

not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past,

nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.

Microsoft was found guilty of antitrust violations for using

monopoly power to extend their influence into other markets. Leaving

Microsoft intact with windows, office, internet explorer, and the

ability to continue bundling, continue unfair pricing, and continue

creating undocumented APIs in the name of security will not bring

competition into these markets. Creating a settlement that relies on

further protracted litigation to correct future transgressions will

not provide just, expedient results.

If a person or organization is able to commit illegal acts,

benefit from those acts and then receive as a

``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those

acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That

is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the

American people in general. While the Court's desire that a

settlement be reached is well-intentioned, it is wrong to reach an

unjust settlement just for settlement's sake. A wrong that is not

corrected is compounded.

Sincerely,

Aaron Patterson

130 W Gilman Apt 1

Madison WI 53703

MTC-00016187

From: Bill Dugan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:49am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The Microsoft settlement is a bad idea.

bdugan.

MTC-00016188

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:28am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern...

I'm wondering when the law stopped being about doing right and

achieving justice and instead turned to ``settling''.

Especially settling with -Microsoft-, a known and repeat

offender which has shown nothing but contempt (when it has cared at

all) for the ongoing litigation against it. Since when do law-

breakers have to agree to their punishment?

Microsoft corp is guilty of the premeditated bludgeoning

Netscape corp to a bloody pulp (with a killer app). Or, from another

point of view, the Mafia is guilty of ``anti-competitive

behavior''. The remedy for this Microsoft situation and the

ongoing situation (try uninstalling Windows Media Player or Windows

Movie Maker from Windows XP-I certainly can't figure out how)

shouldn't involve Microsoft agreeing to it [I've not seen them admit

any guilt] or rely on Microsoft changing internal behavior to abide

by it [see also ``consent decree''].

But also consider:

1) All current Microsoft sales contracts to OEMs are null and

void. Microsoft must write a new, open contract that anybody can

take advantage of to purchase any software that Microsoft makes

avaialble in an OEM fashion. Volume discounts not allowed

as-according to them-there are no barriers to entry in

the software market, ergo minimal distribution costs in the OEM

channel, therefore nothing to discount. (Dell will be charged the

same amount for a Windows license as the corner parts shop down the

road.)

2) Prior to releasing a version of Windows, Microsoft must

submit its entire source code to a government compliance committee.

If

[[Page 26211]]

said committee cannot make the code compile in a way that makes it

look the same as the ``gold'' Windows code, the Windows

product cannot be released. Further, committee will be allowed to

freely redistribute their findings about the current state of

Windows interfaces (APIs) as a standard to allow other people to

adopt the Windows standard. (Or is it ``embrace and

extend'' the Windows standard? Anyway, the difference with this

suggestion is that Microsoft isn't allowed to sell a new version of

Windows until the APIs are in the public domain so compliance will

be rather less of an issue.)

3) Just as a side suggestion, the fees Microsoft charges for

support can never be more expensive than what Microsoft charged for

a specific application. For example, if Outlook Express (free,

bundled with Windows, haven't figured out how to uninstall

it-but the splash screen says Outlook Express, not Windows XP)

is giving you problems, you can get support for it for free. Windows

is giving you problems? Support costs are maxxed out at the OEM

price of Windows. This would give Microsoft an incentive to deal

quickly and directly with consumers in a manner that rapidly

resolves the consumers'' problems-as opposed to telling

them to ask their hardware vendor. (Really, what does Dell know

about Outlook Express?)

Anyway, the first two points would be the most important:

Microsoft cannot do business as usual anymore because their usual

business is -illegal-. Point 3 is just a remedy for my

personal frustration with Microsoft products.

The point is is that this is a real rememdy, not something that

Microsoft can say ``no'' to because they don't feel like

it, not something that they can look back on in a few years and say

``see how nice we are?''

Quite frankly, if wrongdoing is found in the Enron case, we're

not going to fine Mr. Lay $50 and send him out to be a motivational

speaker at high schools. (``Hi Kids! Creative accounting more

or less worked for me, and it can work for you too! Oh, and stay of

drugs-they're expensive.'' It just wouldn't happen.)

So why should we consider giving such treatment to a company

that won't even admit it's bad behavior?

Sincerely,

Jason Miller

e-Business Application Developer

Portland, Oregon

MTC-00016189

From: Bruce McCready

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

Date: 1/23/02 10:43am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

I am opposed to the Proposed Final Judgment to the United States

v. Microsoft Corp. As a software engineer, and a computer

enthusiast, I have followed the Microsoft antitrust trial closely,

and have been aware of the impact of Microsoft Corporation's anti-

competitive practices for much longer. In my opinion, the Proposed

Final Judgment does not go far enough to prevent Microsoft from

continuing these anticompetitive practices. In particular, the

Proposed Final Judgment too narrowly defines the ``Microsoft

Middleware Product'', and eliminates from definition U:

``Windows Operating System Product'' several important

Microsoft operating systems. In order to effectively limit

Microsoft's ability to stifle competition, the definition of

``API ``should probably be expanded to include many other

API's that a conservative interpretation of the existing definition

might exclude. I believe that, in addition, Microsoft's overly

restrictive licensing that discriminates against Independent

Software Vendors who develop solutions for open source operating

systems, or ship open source software must be effectively remedied

in any acceptable Final Judgment.

Sincerely,

Bruce McCready

Software Engineer

Advertising.Com

410-244-1370 x13726

We bring innovation to interactive communication.

Advertising.com-Superior Technology. Superior Performance.

MTC-00016190

From: Troy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:41am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. Microsoft has

long been a thorn in the side of independent achievement. While I

use their products regularly, I find that I use them because no

other company can produce an equivalent or better product without

being pounded into the ground by MS or bought out. I would like to

see their practices change, it would be better for us and better for

them in the long run.

Troy Daley

MTC-00016191

From: Randy Walton

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:43am

Subject: Comments regarding the Microsoft Settlement

To reviewers of public comments regarding the Microsoft

Settlement, I understand that I have the ability to comment on the

proposed settlement between the Justice Department and Microsoft. I

have been using computers daily since the mid-eighties, when my

father brought home an early portable IBM computer. I hope to earn

my livelihood by working in the computing industry. Consequently,

this issue is centrally relevant to my life.

It is widely believed by those familiar with the case that the

proposed settlement is completely inadequate. It will do little to

punish Microsoft for it's plainly illegal conduct in the past, and

virtually nothing whatsoever to prevent future violations of

antitrust law. As a consumer, it infuriates me to be forced to pay

for increasingly expensive software that diminishes in quality with

each release. I applauded the Clinton administration's investigation

of Microsoft. Their case was an effort to protect consumers and

promote economic growth by restoring fairness and competition to the

computer industry.

Now that the DOJ is under new management, it has essentially

abandoned it's pursuit of Microsoft, suggesting that the DOJ no

longer has any concern for either economic growth or the public

good.

The United States is a successful nation because its free

markets encourage firms to compete for customers by producing high-

quality, low-cost goods. This system needs to be protected from

monopolists who gain so much power that they can destroy the

competitive nature of the markets in which they participate.

I urge all parties involved to reconsider the proposed

settlement. Microsoft deserves more than a slap on the wrist for

it's destructive abuse of it's monopoly power. More importantly,

American consumers need to be protected against future abuses.

Thank you for your time,

Randall Walton

MTC-00016196

From: The Rowlands

To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov

Date: 1/23/02 10:45am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

In my opinion, the proposed settlement in the Microsoft case is

a very bad thing. Microsoft has been found guilty of criminal

behavior, and seems quite unwilling to change its ways. I object to

the leniency of the proposed settlement.

Trase Rowland

Ft. Pierce, FL

MTC-00016198

From: Bill Owens

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:39am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am writing as a private citizen and a computer professional to

object to the currently proposed settlement of United States v.

Microsoft. I believe that the settlement both in its details and its

overall makeup is insufficient to relieve the monopolistic behavior

that Microsoft continues, to this very day, to evidence. A stronger,

more complete and thorough settlement, and one that addresses the

roots of the problem rather than its symptoms, is in my opinion

essential. This settlement should be rejected.

Bill.

MTC-00016199

From: M M

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:44am

Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

Judge;

As a long-time banker to many software industry clients, I can

personally attest to the pernicious power and influence of Microsoft

in this, one of America's most important industries. No company in

my lifetime has exerted such a strong and frequently negative

influence over its industry as Microsoft has done over the past 10

years. I will not be giving you my full name, as I fear the wrath of

the folks up in Redmond. But I will ask you to look carefully at the

facts in this case. They will speak for themselves.

Thank you.

E. J.

San Francisco, CA

[[Page 26212]]

MTC-00016200

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:43am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This Proposed Final Judgement is a travesty of injustice. Have

you learned nothing from the previous settlement? Look at

Microsoft's behavior since all the verdicts. They have changed their

attitude not a whit. They have no remorse, they still deny their

guilt, they stall the legal process at every opportunity, they stll

step on competitors, they still accumulate an incredible cash

reserve (``What? A monopoly? Nonsense, we earn this incredible

gross margin through innovation!''), they are, in short, as bad

a monopoly as the country has ever seen. And this settlement might

well have been written by Microsoft. It is full of weasel words and

loopholes. Nothing is pinned down. There are far too many vaguely

defined adjectives. This was written with the sole intent of

providing grounds for any and all interpretations. Microsoft will

argue and debate and stall and obfuscate just as they have always

done.

The oversight committee is a joke. They have no powers, and

Microsoft gets to aoopoint one of their own choosing. Pardon me, can

I go commit a major crime and appoint my own parole board? Better

yet, let me write the terms of my own parole. And O By The Way, let

this parole board have no power whatsoever. As far as actually

serving any hard time, ha ha ha, fooled you!

Felix Finch: scarecrow repairman & rocket surgeon /

[email protected]

GPG = E987 4493 C860 246C 3B1E 6477 7838 76E9 182E 8151 ITAR

license #4933

I've found a solution to Fermat's Last Theorem but I see I've

run out of room o

MTC-00016201

From: James Risner

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:43am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am writing to you about the Microsoft settlement.

I am James Risner from 1600 Woodspring Court, Lexington KY. I

have owned an ISP since 1995 in Kentucky. The 1995 Consent Decree is

nearly identical to the settlement. It is my belief that they will

violate the settlement just as they did they decree. Microsoft

destroyed Netscape because it was a threat to their OS system.

Microsoft put code in that would post an error and fail to run

Windows 3.1 when ran with a a DOS other than MSDOS or IBMDOS at the

time. This prevented the use of Dr DOS at the time.

Microsoft copied Stac compression for their own compressed

filesystem code. Stac sued and won $120 million settlement, but by

the time the money was delivered Stac no longer had a product since

Microsoft produced a clean room version of the code.

The settlement requires ``secret'' API to be published

but defines it narrowly so that not all API would be required to be

published. Many other narrow provisions allow Microsoft to place

independent software vendors in the position of not being able to

keep their product supported in newer Windows version since they do

not get advance warning of significant operating system changes. The

1995 consent decree prohibited anticompetitive license terms, but

did so narrowly such that these type of terms continued in

Microsoft's Internet products, media players, software development

products, and enterprise purchasing license agreements. The same

action considered bad and anticompetitive in one situation, should

be consider bad in all instances.

It is my belief that Microsoft has no intention of obeying this

command and will continue to attempt to interpret loopholes they can

use to continue their actions using their $40 billion in cash to

defend against any action the government attempts to curtail their

illegal behaviour.

Microsoft has done more hard to the economy that healing. I wish

I could say there was a viable alternative to their product that I

use daily, but I would be lying. This is certainly not due to any

effort of the part of their competitors.

Risner

(cos(Theta-r)-sin

Theta)(r-4-2cos(2Theta+2.4)r-2+0.9)+(2.46428x10--208)r-1000

[email protected]

MTC-00016204

From: Jay Laprade

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:44am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs or Maam,

I am a US citizen and I wanted to excersise my rights under the

Tunney Act in reagrds to the Microsoft Trial. Here is my feelings, I

believe that Microsoft was let of easily. While I believe that it is

necessary to maintain the stability of a company within the bounds

of the US. ie Keep the company reasonably happy and not drive it

away. I think it is necessary to set specific standards and laws

that help the average US citizen. Not the company. I believe that

this ruling did the best thing for Microsoft. It was too leanent and

needs to be more firm. Microsoft is slowly killing it only

reasonable competitor. And it's competitor is free. In my humble

opinion it is also killing off other competitors. Nullsoft was

bought by AOL. Their product is free. Netscape is gone. All these

products are continuing to disappear.

Jay Laprade

Information & Communications Analyst

Paramount International Telecommunications

(800)829-8694 X214

[email protected]

MTC-00016210

From: Carlos Eberhardt

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:44am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To: Renata B. Hesse

Antitrust Division

U.S. Department of Justice

601 D Street NW

Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20530-0001

Hello,

As a concerned citizen and professional software developer, I

wish to comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement. I do not feel

the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) would prevent Microsoft from

continuing anticompetitive practices, and I do not believe it would

level the playing field for competing Windows-compatible operating

systems. Specifically, although the PFJ forbids retaliation against

OEMs, ISVs, and IHVs who support or develop alternatives to Windows,

it does not ensure that Microsoft could raise no artificial barriers

against non-Windows operating systems which implement the APIs

needed to run application programs written for Windows. Therefore it

should not be adopted without considerable revision.

Sincerely,

Carlos Eberhardt

5336 East Street

White Bear Twp, MN 55110-2312

MTC-00016212

From: Dave Newcum

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:41am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Microsoft deserves more than a slap on the wrist for its

destructive abuse of its monopoly power. Similar to the settlement

against AT&T, Microsoft should become a government regulated

Monopoly, until its market share drops to an acceptable level (40%,

for example, assuming one of it's competitors is now also at 40%).

This must be true for all Microsoft product lines, before regulation

is lifted. Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause the public to

bear increased costs and deny them the products of the innovation

that would otherwise be stimulated through competition. It is my

belief that a very strong set of strictures must be placed on

convicted monopolists to insure that they are unable to continue

their illegal activities. I do not think that the proposed

settlement is strong enough to serve this function.

Sincerely,

David Newcum

Rockford, IL

Software Engineer

MTC-00016213

From: Rick Sipin

To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 26213]]

Date: 1/23/02 10:44am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Department of Justice,

I'm writing to comment on my negative opinion of the Proposed

Final Judgement to the Microsoft Anit-trust case. Specifically, the

judgement seems to be completely oriented towards Microsoft's

licensing practices with third party (OEM and the like) vendors, and

does nothing to prevent Microsoft from completely circumventing the

judgement by their licencing practices with the end users.

Specifically current Microsoft volume licensing policies, require

that once subscribed to their new licensing structure that no

contracts may be entered into that allow an end user to install or

use competing software from what Microsoft offers. Now I may not be

taking the language straight from the horses mouth, but according to

many sources, including CIO magazine (see attached link below), this

is their current licensing practice. In my opinion, this is in

response to the DOJ settlement, and appears to be done by Microsoft

to continue their unfair and monopolistic practices. As a software

developer, systems designer and integrator, my business will be

under significant additional stress from this kind of monopolistic

practices, if Microsoft is allowed to continue to put undue, and in

my opinion, illegal pressure on it's end users to use no products

which compete with their own. Clearly, in my mind, Microsoft wishes

to work in an envvironment where the only choices are Microsoft, or

nothing at all. I would like to see a settlement which specifically

addresses this kind of anit-competitive practice, and which does

something more tangible that what the current proposed settlement

offers, to enforce fair competitive practices, and penalize

Microsoft for failing to comply with these terms.

Thank you for your consideration.

Rick Sipin-Owner

Thinking Edge Design

2575 S Lafayette St

Denver, CO 80210

http://www.thinkingedge.com

[email protected]

(303) 282-8427

Link to CIO Magazine reference of 15 Jan 2002:

http://www.cio.com/archive/011502/meter.html

MTC-00016214

From: Eric Busboom

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:45am

Subject: Comments on Microsfot Settlement

The PJF is disastrously weak, as many commentators have already

noted over the last few months. As a programmer who has suffered

with the poor quality operating systems that Microsoft has

distributed for the last 20 years, I am disgusted that my government

would allow Microsoft to continue to strangle the software industry.

Many of the key restrictions in the PFJ relate to Microsoft

middleware, but the definition of ``middleware'' is weak

and the the restrictions are easy to avoid. Specifically,

* Because a software unit will cease to be defined a middleware

a year after it is incorporated into the Operating System, the PFJ

encourages Microsoft to integrate more functions into the OS. I had

hoped the PFJ would discourage this, not promote it.

* Programmers need the APIs in the OS published more than the

APIs to middleware. Without documented OS APIs and program document

formats, Microsoft can continue to stifle development from ISVs.

The PFJ was clearly constructed so that Microsoft could avoid

any hindrance to its predatory business practices, and if it becomes

final, it will only serve to maintain status quo.

Eric Busboom.

MTC-00016215

From: Eric Butler Evans

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:44am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Tunney Act comment:

My comments concern the enforcement provisions of the Proposed

Final Settlement. The provisions seem to assume that Microsoft will

make a good faith effort to comply with the provisions of the PFS.

This assumption is not justified. Microsoft has demonstrated

contempt for the Court in all of its interactions with the Court;

there is no reason to believe that it will comply more effectively

with the PFS than it did with the 1994 consent decree.

The enforcement provisions provided in IV, B of the Proposed

Final Settlement are inadequate for the following reasons:

1) The enforcement provisions rely on ongoing monitoring efforts

by the states acting as a committee. (IV, B, 1); this system of

governance will result in a reduction in the efficiency of the

monitoring process as the states have already demonstrated that

their interests are not identical by splitting in their acceptance

of the Proposed Final Settlement.

2) The enforcement provisions prevent the states from disclosing

information revealed by Microsoft in the process of enforcement (IV,

A, 2, b).

3) Microsoft is given a role in the selection of the Technical

Committee (IV, B, 3). Given Microsoft's previous history of

disregard for consent decrees and other legal sanctions, the

likelihood that Microsoft will use its appointment power to undercut

the effectiveness of the TC is high.

4) Given the powers of the TC (IV, B, 8), it will require an

extremely large staff. The expense of monitoring Microsoft's

compliance, especially given the company's past history of grudging

and incomplete compliance with the 1994 consent decree, will be very

substantial.

5) Microsoft is given the power of appointing the Compliance

Officer (IV, C, 1). Given the company's past history of grudging and

incomplete compliance with the 1994 consent decree, it is unlikely

that the company will appoint a CO who will attempt to comply with

the present settlement in good faith.

6) The powers to the TC and CO do not extend beyond acceptance

of complaints from 3rd parties which can be forwarded to Microsoft

to ``accept or reject'' (IV, D, 3, c) or proposing cures

(IV, D, 4, c). Without the authority to mandate cures, the

enforcement authority will be ineffective, given Microsoft's history

of evading consent decrees.

Microsoft's crimes demand a structural remedy, not the

establishment of a powerless ``compliance'' authority.

Sincerely,

Eric

Eric Evans

MTC-00016216

From: James Bearden

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:45am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hello,

I feel that the proposed settlement with Microsoft in it's

current form will do little to hinder Microsoft's affirmed monopoly

practices. The problems are too numerous to mention here, but the

three person ``oversight'' committee gag decree is

especially henious.

James

MTC-00016217

From: Chris Parrinello

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:46am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing with regards to the proposed settlement between

Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I believe that the

settlement in light of the fact that the courts have decided and

upheld the fact that Microsoft has violated the law, is not a

punishment at all nor it is strong enough to modify the illegal and

anti-competitive behavior of Microsoft. The proposed final judgement

(PFJ) has the following flaws:

The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing

operating systems

* Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by using

restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet the

PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this part of the

Applications Barrier to Entry.

The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and

Provisions

* The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs,

but it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important

APIs are not covered.

* The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft

Middleware with competing middleware, but it defines

``Microsoft Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version

of Windows might not be covered at all.

* The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a

competitor's product-but Microsoft is replacing Java with

.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET

with competing middleware.

* The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it

defines that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP

Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-

Box-operating systems that all use the Win32 API and are

advertized as being ``Windows Powered''. The PFJ fails to

require advance notice of technical requirements,

[[Page 26214]]

allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware simply by

changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and not

informing ISVs.

* The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to

ISVs so they can create compatible middleware-but only after

the deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is

compatible.

* The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation-

but prohibits competitors from using this documentation to help make

their operating systems compatible with Windows.

* The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation

about the format of Microsoft Office documents.

* The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software

patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible

operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not

infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away

potential users.

The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms currently used

by Microsoft

* Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep

Open Source apps from running on Windows.

* Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep

Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.

* Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large

companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number

of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system-even

for computers running competing operating systems such as Linux!

(Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 consent

decree.)

The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities Historically

Used by Microsoft

* Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional

incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from running on

competing operating systems.

The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs

* The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that

ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but

no Microsoft operating system.

* The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small

OEMs-including regional ``white box'' OEMs which are

historically the most willing to install competing operating

systems-who ship competing software.

* The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs)

to OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket

PC systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-

compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other

areas.

The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective

enforcement mechanism.

With these flaws taken in part or in whole, the PFJ does not

serve justice nor does it address the damage that has been done in

the high-tech industry with respect to the innovation that Microsoft

has PREVENTED because of its anti-competitive behavior.

Sincerely,

Chris Parrinello

Software Engineer

214 Travis Court

Apt. 305

Schaumburg, IL 60195

(847) 490-1935

MTC-00016218

From: Carmine F. Greco

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:45am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir or Madam:

I disagree with the proposed Microsoft judgement. I don't think

this judgement will prevent Microsoft from monopolistic practices.

Just look at the current MSN/AOL competition and how Microsoft is

forcing MSN on people.

Carmine

Carmine F. Greco

MTC-00016219

From: Aaron McBride

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:45am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think the Microsoft Anti-trust settlement is a bad idea. While

it may help to deter them from further violations, it doesn't do

enough to restore competition to the market. I suggest either

breaking them up into at least 4 companies (OS Core, OS GUI,

Applications, and hardware), or force them to expose all OS, and

application APIs-including Microsoft Office file formats. They

should also not be allowed to break the cross-platform nature of the

Internet by implementing platform specific ``plug-ins''

(ActiveX components) in their web browser.

-Aaron McBride

MTC-00016220

From: Shawn Stricklin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:46am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To: Renata B. Hesse

Antitrust Division

U.S. Department of Justice

601 D Street NW

Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20530-0001

I am submitting this comment, as permitted by the Tunney act,

regarding the remedies proposed as the outcome of the Microsoft

Antitrust trial. As a scientist in training, I must work with non-

Microsoft operating systems and products every day. The proprietary

and ever-changing FILE FORMATS used by Microsoft, however, make even

the exchange of simple text files between Microsoft and non-

Microsoft programs incredibly cumbersome. Any proposed Microsoft

remedy which does not include the absolute requirement for openly

published data file formats falls far short of the required public

benefit.

On the day-to-day office work level, it is this intentional file

format incompatibility which forces purchase of Microsoft products,

and further, it is the artificial incompatibility BETWEEN VERSIONS

OF THE SAME MICROSOFT PRODUCT which forces purchase of ever newer

Microsoft products, EVEN THOUGH THEY FREQUENTLY ADD NO RELEVANT

FUNCTIONALITY OVER THE OLDER PRODUCTS.

Publicly available Microsoft file format specifications would

allow third-party developers to produce file conversion tools which

completely obviate this unfair Microsoft practice.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this judgment.

Shawn Stricklin

Shawn L. Stricklin [email protected]

Washington University, Dept. of Genetics Phone: 314.747.8207

4566 Scott Ave, Box 8232 St. Louis, MO 63110 Fax: 314.362.7855

MTC-00016221

From: Lund, Kenneth

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:45am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think the proposed settlement is bad idea.

/[email protected]

MTC-00016224

From: Glenn Patterson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:45am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As a software developer I believe this settlement is a bad idea.

It has been shown time and again that MS will do anything to keep

it's monopoly. It is obvious to anyone involved in software/hardware

that MS uses it's monopoly to drive companies to buy their products

and then locks them. Once a company begins developing with MS

products they are forced to continue because of the high cost they

would face to switch to other solutions. Further, MS will then

upgrade it's products, forcing anyone using them to buy the next

release or their lose support for the version they are on.

There are many issues with regard to this settlement and I refer

you to http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html for more information.

If this settlement is allowed to go through it will have been a

waste of time, money, and great energy on the part of the government

and all involved.

Sincerely,

Glenn Patterson

MTC-00016225

From: Jim Leonard

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:46am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am writing to OPPOSE the current proposed settlement. In my

opinion it appears to do little to realistically open up the market

to competition nor does it appear to have any credible enforcement

capabilities.

Victor Leonard

6708 Concourse Dr

Columbus OH 43229

MTC-00016226

From: Troy Daley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:42am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. Microsoft has

long been a thorn in the side of independent achievement.

While I use their products regularly, I find that I use them

because no other company can produce an equivalent or better product

without being pounded into the ground by MS or bought out. I would

like to see their practices change, it would be better for us and

better for them in the long run.

Troy Daley

MTC-00016227

From: Jason Spangler

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:46am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea, and is not strict

enough to curb Microsoft's monopolistic behavior.

MTC-00016228

From: Scott Pepple

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:45am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern,

As a consumer of Microsoft products for over 15 years and a

citizen of the United States, I've got a few opinions I would like

to share with the Department of Justice, The Federal Court and the

general public.

The progression of the Microsoft Anti-Trust trial over the past

couple of years has filled me with hope that we were after all a

nation ruled by laws rather than by money. The decision of the

Department of Justice to conclude the proceedings with a hastily

negotiated settlement after they had all but won the day has been a

sad realization for me that we still have a long way to go.

Any person with sense can see consumer choice is limited when

the same company that produces the operating system used by 80% of

the desktops in the country also produces software to run on that

operating system. Name any competitive Word Processing Program on

the market. There are none. Is that because Word Processing Programs

are so tough to write? Is that because Microsoft's Word Processing

Program is so good? It's because Microsoft is constantly making

efforts towards it's prime goal-the creation of a unified,

monolithic Desktop under their control. Whether by coding practices,

marketing practices or by manipulation of the legal system, they

have been more successful than not in achieving their prime

directive.

Regardless of the lack of acceptability of the current

situation, it appears that the current administration is less than

ardent in pursuing justice at the risk of their campaign and

whatever other contributions they can expect from Microsoft.

Given that situation, the current structure of the initial

agreement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft should be

modified to expand the portions on interoperability. A strong

emphasis in the resolution on this one area will yield the greatest

longterm benefits to the industry and the consumer. If Microsoft's

standards and interfaces were well known natural competition will

follow. To state that such information is a security risk is merely

covering the weaknesses of an insecure platform.

Second, any penalties that should be levied on Microsoft need to

be recompensed in Cash! Anything but goods and services! The very

nature of Microsoft's business model seeks deployment of the maximum

amount of software to obtain dependency among the greatest number of

people. By exacting payment in goods and services you will simply be

helping them to achieve their prime objective. Simply put, your

settlement should try harder to make the bad guys work with the rest

of us in a fair manner and your penalties should not let the bad

guys do more bad.

Scott Pepple

MTC-00016229

From: Jack Park

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:46am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

May I please offer a comment, one that I think addresses the

primary issue in relation to Microsoft's ability to remain a

monopoly. If is this: If competitors have the ability to create and

offer for sale truly compatible products, I believe that the

capability to maintain a monopoly position in the market will be

greatly reduced.

Of greatest importance is the Microsoft Office product. I

strongly believe that the Microsoft Office file format specification

should be completely documented and those documents kept completely

in synch with any version changes Microsoft makes. Those documents

must be made public domain, usable without any restrictions. This, I

believe, will make it much easier for competitors to guarantee file

compatibility with Microsoft products.

I am certain that there are other issues at stake here. I have

chosen to focus on the particular issue I think most important.

Sincerely

Jack Park

Independent Software Developer

Brownsville, California

MTC-00016230

From: Warren Ferguson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:46am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The Microsoft Settlement is bad. We need a better solution, not

an advertisement package for the Microsoft robber barrons. Open

source operating systems need to be promoted. Considering the

dependency America has on Microsoft products, the poor reliability

of Microsoft products, and the unfair trade practices of Microsoft,

it is time for a major innitiative to promote alternatives like

linux.

Warren Ferguson

213 Marilyn Circle

Cary NC 27513

Title: Senior Software Engineer

Affiliation: Master of Computer Science, Wright State

University, Ohio

MTC-00016231

From: David

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:46am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing in regards to the proposed settlement of the

Microsoft Anti-trust case.

In my considered opinion as a Computing Systems Manager I must

disagree with the proposed settlement as it is currently written.

While I agree with the decision that Microsoft is in violation of

anti-trust laws, I feel that the current proposed settlement

[[Page 26216]]

needs additional work and review before it will effectively curtail

these monopolistic practices. In broad strokes, my primary

objections are as follows.

1. The wording of restrictions need further examination for

loopholes and easy methods of circumvention. I suggest that the

attorney's involved seek additional techinical/computing advisement

in understanding the details and ramifications of these issues.

Example: The Definition of Microsoft Middleware is overly exclusive

and appears to be avoidable by changing version numbering or

distribution methods.

2. API and Protocol sharing are too limited to insure that other

developers and operating systems can compete with MS products. The

limits placed on what must be shared/revealed does not address the

issue of ``porting'' software designed to run on the

Windows line of MS operating systems to other OS's or support for

software designed to run Windows based applications on systems

running a non-Microsoft Operating system.

Example-This would not reduce the application barrier to

entry for such software as the WINE project that endeavors to allow

the use of software written for Windows on a computer running the

Linux OS.

3. Enforcement of the decision and the watchdogging of MS's

compliance needs further review and strengthening. The

specifications for who can serve in this role need greater

definition and the position needs more ability to enforce the

settlement and curtail further monopolistic practices.

4. The settlement does not address proprietary digital document

formats. This is a very specific issue but very important. One of

the greatest barriers to competition with MS Software is the

proprietary nature of documents created using the MS Office Suite

software. The MS Word document format has become the de facto

standard in business. Due to the proprietary nature of its encoding

no other developer of word processor software can gain significant

entry into the market due to the inaccessibility of this format. In

practice a business MUST use MS Office to do business with other

companies. This also has the effect of effectively reducing the

choice of operating systems to be used by businesses to those OS's

that run Microsoft Office, thus reducing competition in the OS

market as well.

There are many other issues that seem to make the current

settlement less than effective. Please consider researching some of

the excellent commentaries and essay's available by other concerned

parties as they far exceed my modest research.

To restate, I can not advice acceptance of the current proposal

and strongly suggest continued revision and strengthening of the

measures taken to rectify the damage already done by Microsoft's

anti-competitve practices and prevent their use in the future.

Please feel free to contact me if I may be of help in any way.

Thank you,

Sincerely,

David Ehle

Computing Systems Manager

CAPP CSRRI

Illinois Institute of Technology

Chicago IL 60616

312-567-3751

[email protected]

MTC-00016232

From: Nothingface

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:46am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would like to express my concern that the Proposed Final

Judgement is not adequate to solve the problems it attempts to

address. I think in many cases, the Proposed Final Judgement is

structured is such a way as to encourage and support Microsoft

continuing business practices that are harmful to the economy and

society.

I agree with Dan Kegel's analysis and proposed solutions; his

comments can be found here: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html

// Darius Rad, Electrical Engineer, Reading, MA

MTC-00016233

From: wayne barker

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:46am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

This email is being written to express my deep disappointment

with the proposed settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust case.

I am a systems administrator at a design firm. As a computer

professional, I have used Microsoft products for years-I am

typing this email on one now. Over the 10+ years that I have used

computers professionally, I have often been amazed at the unfair and

inhibiting practices that Microsoft engages in. Their reputation as

the ``Evil Empire'' is not a title lightly given nor is it

undeserved. There have been an inconceivable number of times that I

have had to patch a system/server/application due to shoddy

programming by Microsoft, or worse yet to try to work around an

intentional disabling of a feature that made a competitors product

unusable.

Microsoft is certainly capable of producing a quality

product-I use several, in fact the majority of the computers I

personally own run legally purchased copies of Microsoft operating

systems and applications. However, I strongly support a the use of

penalty, forced restructuring, and individual user remuneration, in

order to convince Microsoft, in a definitive way, that they will no

longer be allowed to manipulate and (more often than not) impede

technological and social advancement in this country solely in order

to maximize their profits.

There is an attitude, from Bill Gates down, that we work for

them, that they will give us what they want to give us, and damn

America if they don1t like it. As has been suggested in a recent

initiative to expand broadband access throughout this country as a

means to enhance economic rejuvenation, the technological health and

robustness of this country IS a national security interest. I do not

believe for one second that Microsoft would fail to take advantage

of any opportunity to further their market dominance, at the expense

of ANY other concern, including and specifically those that threaten

the reliability and independence of the computers users of this

world. Indeed, the cynical nature of their proposed settlement,

given that it would seriously degrade one of their few competitors

small niche markets (Apple in education, where Apple is a much

better suited product) is just one example of a DAILY litany of

abuse, neglect, and misinformation.

Our society, more than almost any other on this planet, has

embraced the Technological and Computer revolutions. Our future is

CLEARY tied to these areas, as our dominance in other resources and

arenas wanes in an ever-more free-market world.

Given this, we as a country simply cannot afford a behemoth of

this stature and hubris to define and manipulate our progress.

Standard Oil was a ubiquitous force which controlled vast stretches

of our countries energy supplies, but was dethroned in a move that

strengthened our nations health and enhanced progress. AT&T WAS

the ``phone company'', but their breakup, in allowing and

encouraging competition and innovation in the communications

infrastructure, was a significant force in encouraging our current

technological revolution.

It is now the time to restructure, penalize, and otherwise

mollify Microsoft's ambitions, so that the health, wealth, and

opportunity of our future is that much more realizable. We have

enough threats and issues to deal with outside of this country,

please deal effectively with this internal one, and place us on a

firmer more secure footing for the trials that lie ahead.

And thank you very much for allowing a member of the public to

express their concerns over this issue-I am honored.

Sincerely,

Wayne Barker

Systems Administrator

Savage Design Group, Inc.

wayne barker-systems admin-savage design group, inc.

4203 yoakum-houston, tx

77006-713-522-1555

[email protected]

MTC-00016234

From: Michael McCafferty

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:48am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I wish to comment on the proposed settlement in the case of US

vs. Microsoft.

While I believe that there are several shortcomings of the

proposed settlement, I feel the greatest oversight is the weak

provisions for enforcement of future conduct. The settlement as

written provides many loopholes, and Microsoft's management have

demonstrated their willingness to exploit any such loopholes in

pursuing the letter of the law, at the expense of the spirit. Any

company whose leadership would introduce false evidence into court,

get caught, and replace it with other false evidence, cannot be

counted on to abide by laws or codes of conduct which permit any

ambiguity.

The current proposed settlement is tantamount to the DOJ walking

away from a case that they've already won. Microsoft

[[Page 26217]]

gained its current monopoly status illegally, and must be forced to

behave like a monopolist. This proposed settlement will not

significantly influence the behavior of Microsoft's executives. A

new remedy should be sought.

Sincerely,

Michael McCafferty

2860 California St #10

San Francisco, CA 94115

MTC-00016235

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:47am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I support Microsoft on the case of AOL Vs. MS. I am not an

Microsoft employee, but after seeing the way AOL operates, I support

Microsoft. I also develop my own web browser, 404Browser,

404Browser.com. One of the arguements that I heard that AOL used

against Microsoft is that they underpriced their web browser (free).

On the internet it is a joke if someone charged money for there web

browser. AOL is even a bigger monopoly that Microsoft is. AOL's

software will not even allow you to run alternitive internet

applications outside their program.

Steven Hicks

404Browser Support

MTC-00016236

From: Antonio J. Alvaradorivera, III(059) A+, B. Sc., CCNA, RHCE

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:49am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This settlement does nothing to prevent MS from abusing its

power in the future with future product releases. Somehow this needs

to be addressed, monitored, and PREVENTED (not just caught). MS has

held the computer industry back in all areas that it is not ready to

compete, and that needs to stop.

Antonio Jose Alvaradorivera, III

A+, B.Sc., CCNA, RHCE

RackSpace Managed Hosting

Let us look out not only to our own interests, but also to the

interests of others. This is not Rackspace's official opinion, but

rather an opinion of the author.

MTC-00016237

From: Dylan Tack

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:48am

Subject: Microsoft settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I have read, and am opposed to, the proposed settlement in the

Microsoft Antitrust trial. Please consider a vote against it.

In particular, I am opposed to the overly narrow definition of

``API'' in the proposed final judgment. Microsoft should

be required to document ALL Windows interfaces, so that competing

vendors (such as Codeweavers, makers of WINE) can compete fairly in

the market.

Also, the proposal does little to redress Microsoft's past

actions, and only places (inadequate) restraints on future behavior.

Heavy fines should be assessed, with the proceeds used to support

Open Source development of alternatives to Microsoft products.

Sincerely,

Dylan Tack

Dylan Tack

The Coordinated Laboratory for Computational Genomics and

Parallel Processing Laboratory

Dept of Electrical and Computer Engr.

University of Iowa

Iowa City, IA 52242 (USA)

email: [email protected]

URL http://genome.uiowa.edu

MTC-00016238

From: Lucas Marshall

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:47am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft

antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does

not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past,

nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.

The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only

formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will

effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly

position in the operating system market. This is especially

important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past

transgressions.

Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct

Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct

or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future

repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the

very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to

commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a

``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those

acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That

is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the

American people in general.

While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-

intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for

settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.

Sincerely,

Robert L. Marshall

2603 Circle Drive

Santa Clara, UT 84765

MTC-00016239

From: Mike Long

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

Date: 1/23/02 10:48am

Subject: My opposition to some elements of the Microsoft/Sun

settlement

I am a software developer with 19 years of experience and I am

really glad to be free from having to use the Window's operating

system. I am opposed to the jusdgements here which would prohibit me

from running licensed Windows software on another operating system

such as Linux.

Sincerely,

Mike Long

Senior Software Developer

Net Decisions

MTC-00016240

From: Zachary D. Noffsinger Erbaugh

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:49am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom it may Concern,

I am a professional in Information Technology, and am writing to

you as part of the Tunney Act comment process about the proposed

settlement of the antitrust case against Microsoft.

I am severely concerned about the proposed settlement. One of

the most striking problems is the lack of any provision for

disclosure of Microsoft protocols to not-for-profit organizations

(as determined by Microsoft-cf. Section III(J)(2), Section

III(D).) This would allow Microsoft to deny access to the most

important competitors to Windows, including Linux (operating

system), Apache (web server), and SAMBA (network server.) These

systems provide consumers with options that are less expensive (both

in terms of purchase price and Total Cost of Ownership) and more

secure than the software Microsoft produces.

The current settlement would allow Microsoft to effectively

destroy some or all of the above systems by denying them access to

Windows standards, simply because they are not

``businesses'' in the traditional sense. It is ironic that

such organizations are not being recognized by the U.S. government

in this settlement, since they are more democratic and egalitarian

than their for-profit counterparts. Furthermore, free and

``Open Source'' (www.opensource.org) software has been

repeatedly shown to be more secure than Microsoft's (often

flagrantly) insecure products, and provide the impetus for increased

security and reliability, which are important considerations in the

world in which we now find ourselves.

I urge you to not let the proposed settlement stand. Seek

further technical counsel on the implications of any proposed

settlement. With appropriate advice from within the industry, the

settlement can be written in such a way that the options of computer

users, the viability of non-profit innovators, and the security of

computer networks in this country are protected.

Sincerely,

Zachary D. Noffsinger Erbaugh,

Computing Support Specialist, Bethany Theological Seminary and

Earlham School of Religion

615 National Road West, Richmond, Indiana 47374, (765)

983-1262 (Office), (800) BTS-8822, FAX (765)

983-1840

228 College Ave., Richmond, IN 47374, (765) 983-1423,

(800) 432-1377, FAX (765) 983-1866

mailto:[email protected], http://

www.bethanyseminary.edu/, http://esr.earlham.edu/.

MTC-00016241

From: Jason Jobe

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:48am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To: Renata B. Hesse

Antitrust Division

U.S. Department of Justice

601 D Street NW

Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20530-0001

[[Page 26218]]

Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed

Microsoft settlement. I agree with the problems identified in Dan

Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/

remedy2.html).

I have signed the aforementioned petition but I wanted to

reinforce my concern about how Microsoft has negatively impacted the

software industry and strongly urge you to reject the current

settlement offer.

Sincerely,

Jason Jobe

President

Datalore, Inc.

Purcellville, VA 20132

MTC-00016242

From: Park, Christopher

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:47am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

First, thank you for taking the time to read this letter. After

reviewing some of the proposed solultion to the Microsoft anti-trust

settlement, I feel it leaves much to be desired.

I am an independant software programmer, and I feel stifled by

the anti-competitive practices Microsoft has engaged in for many

years. Many of my feelings on this subject can be summed up in Dan

Kegel's Open letter to the department of Justice (http://

www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html)

Thank You,

Christopher Park

MTC-00016243

From: Cathal Stockdale

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:47am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

MTC-00016244

From: Sherri McConaghy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:47am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft

antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does

not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past,

nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.

The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only

formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will

effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly

position in the operating system market. This is especially

important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past

transgressions.

Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct

Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct

or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future

repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the

very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to

commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a

``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those

acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That

is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the

American people in general.

While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-

intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for

settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.

Sincerely,

Sherri McConaghy

MTC-00016245

From: Chris Shenefiel

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 11:06am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft

antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does

not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past,

nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.

The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only

formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will

effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly

position in the operating system market. This is especially

important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past

transgressions. Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing

to correct Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions

that correct or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit

the future repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes

against the very foundation of law. If a person or organization is

able to commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then

receive as a ``punishment'' instructions that they cannot

commit those acts again, they have still benefited from their

illegal acts. That is not justice, not for the victims of their

abuses and not for the American people in general.

While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-

intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for

settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.

Sincerely,

Chris Shenefiel

MTC-00016246

From: david boswell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:49am

Subject: microsoft settlement

i am writing to express my feelings about the proposed remedies

for the microsoft settlement before the public comment period closes

in a few days. it is my opinion that it has been proven that

microsoft is a monopoly and that it has used predatory practices in

the past to further and extend that monopoly.

my concern is that no adequate remedy will be chosen to address

this situation. although i don't have any specific solutions to

propose, i believe that many people have come up with many good

ideas that would be effective. for instance, i agree with the

sentiment of a recently published article in salon.com: http://

www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2002/01/16/competition/index.html

thank you for taking the time to read and consider this message.

david

MTC-00016247

From: Jim Rankin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:50am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am a consulting engineer at Apple Computer, concerned about

how Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior could hinder my company's

ability to reach customers with the creative and innovative products

for which Apple is known. I also speak as one who wants a future

where technology innovation cannot be held back by a single

corporation's anticompetitive behavior. This message does not

necessarily reflect Apple's views.

I am concerned that the proposed final judgment in the Microsoft

antitrust proceeding does not accomplish what it claims to

accomplish. The language is drafted loosely enough to allow

Microsoft to avoid following the intent of the judgment in many

points. Specifically, see the issues raised at http://www.kegel.com/

remedy/letter.html.

The stated intent of the proposed final judgment is an

appropriate response to Microsoft's crimes. But if this intent

cannot be enforced and allows Microsoft alternative ways to engage

in anticompetitive behavior, it is worthless. Please revise the

proposed final judgment to truly prohibit and appropriately punish

any future anticompetitive acts by Microsoft.

Mistakes made now may never be undone. The proposed final

judgment seems to require bringing entirely new proceedings to

address any future anticompetitive actions by Microsoft. There may

never again be the political will or opportunity to correct flaws in

this proposed final judgment later if they are not corrected now.

Sincerely,

Jim Rankin

1159 Ovington Avenue #2

Brooklyn, NY 11219

718 232-2763

MTC-00016248

From: elijah wright

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:49am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am upset with the way that the PFJ fails to punish Microsoft

for its historical pattern of illegal action and monopoly driven

dominance of the computing industry.

In particular, the Proposed Final Judgment seems to do very

little to actually ``punish'' Microsoft. The entire

agreement is vague, punishment is easily evaded, and the

``punishment'' does very little to strike at the heart of

their core business (which, unfortunately, seems to be the

maintenance of their monopoly).

Those with more than five years of experience in the industry

are fully conversant with MS's poor behavior and tendency to slide

toward proprietary lock-in; I, as well as others, would be happy to

comment upon their past indiscretions if need be.

Thanks so much for your time.

Elijah Wright

MTC-00016249

From: Mike Savage

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

Date: 1/23/02 10:39am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe the currently proposed settlement regarding the

Microsoft Antitrust case is a

[[Page 26219]]

disservice to every American citizen, even those who are a part of

Microsoft Corporation. I would urge the DOJ to push for stiffer

penalties.

Thank you,

J. Michael Savage

Database/Systems Administrator

datastream.net portal development team

(800) 955-6775 x7646

MTC-00016250

From: Joe Bowers

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

Date: 1/23/02 10:51am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would like to register my objections to the Proposed Final

Judgement of the United States vs. Microsoft.

As a professional software developer with experience working in

Microsoft Windows and non-Windows environments, it is my opinion

that by adopting very narrow definitions of ``API'',

``Microsoft Middleware'', ``Microsoft Middleware

Product'', and ``Windows Operating System Product'',

the proposed settlement offers ample opportunity for the Microsoft

corporation to continue, and continue to profit from,

anticompetitive conduct at the expense of software developers like

myself, the distributors of computer hardware, and ultimately end

users. Microsoft has illustrated great ingenuity and a true flair

for ``innovation'' when it comes to discovering and

perpetrating new damaging and illegal practices by which it can

leverage its monopoly in one market into a monopoly in another

market. Only by adopting much broader definitions that can include

presently unforseen technologies, development patterns, and release

strategies, can we as a nation prevent Microsoft from continually

throwing stumbling blocks in the way of competitive commerce and the

advance of the state of the art of computing.

In addition, the amount of information the proposed settlement

requires Microsoft to reveal and the required timeframes for

revealing that information are respectively too little and too late.

The various practices explicitly allowed by the settlement including

limitations on the use of published APIs, the withholding of patent

information by Microsoft, the ability for Microsoft to legally

discriminate against OEMs not in the ``top twenty'' for

distributing non-Microsoft products, and continued tolerance of

limitations on the development of publicly available software in

Microsofts licensing all contribute to my belief that the proposed

judgement will do nothing but block further legal recourse with

respect to Microsoft's illegal and damaging practices.

Please, consider the state of the art and the state of the

business of software and software development before committing to

such and ineffective settlement with a criminal organization.

Thank You,

Joseph Bowers

600 A North Greensboro Street

Carrboro, NC 27510

MTC-00016251

From: Cal Evans

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 12:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settelment

To whom it may concern:

I have read about the proposed settlement in the Microsoft Anti-

Trust case and am disappointed in it. The settlement, as currently

proposed will do nothing to curb the anti-competitive behavior.

Please consider this a vote against the current settlement and I am

asking that you seek a new settlement that is more closely aligned

with the crimes they have been convicted of.

Thank you,

Cal Evans

P.O. Box 1281

Nashville, TN 37011

[email protected]

Cal Evans

Senior Internet Dreamer

http://www.calevans.com

MTC-00016252

From: Sioux Bellinder

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:51am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Make the right choice.

Re: the Tunney Act, my comment

The Proposed Microsoft Final Judgment as written allows and

encourages significant anticompetitive practices to continue, would

delay the emergence of competing Windows-compatible operating

systems, and is therefore not in the public interest. It should not

be adopted without substantial revision to address these problems.

Sioux Bellinder

Hasten Computer Solutions

3204 Hillside Dr

Wonder Lake, IL 60097

815-653-0902

fax 815-653-8841

MTC-00016253

From: James Bayer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:51am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

I am 25 year old software developer. I feel that the outcome of

the proposed Microsoft Settlement will directly impact my career for

many years to come, and therefore I have a responsibility to voice

my concerns about the settlement.

I do not like the terms of the settlement. I do not think that

as they are written, that the terms will preclude Microsoft from

behaving in a monopolistic manner or benefit the end consumer. The

most glaring problems I see with the settlement are in the terms

that are designed to help remove the barriers to entry in the

marketplace by providing additional information about the way

Windows works. A more stringent standard than is being proposed by

the final judgment will be necessary to meet the goal of having ISV

successfully utilize the Windows APIs. Microsoft should be required

to update documentation to ISVs whenever the API requirements

change. Currently, the final judgment says that Microsoft has to

notify ISVs seven months in advance of a new release, but not keep

them up to date about changes. Additionally, many APIs under the

current finally judgment will remain undocumented because of the

narrow Microsoft Middleware Product'' and ``API''

definitions.

By making the APIs more accessible to ISVs, consumers will

benefit with more choice of platforms which to run their software

and more software to choose from. I sincerely hope that the problems

with the current final judgment, specifically the Windows API

portions are addressed.

Thank you,

James Bayer

[email protected]

844 W. Grace St.

Apt. G

Chicago, IL 60613

773-755-8129

MTC-00016254

From: Jeff Dutkofski

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:50am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I wanted to voice my concerns with the proposed settlement

agreement in the Microsoft case.

It appears that efforts have been made in Sections III.F. and

III.G. of the PFJ to prohibit certain exclusionary licensing

practices by Microsoft towards ISVs.

These Sections are as not strong as they could be. In its

present wording, Microsoft's End User License Agreement (EULA) uses

restrictive terms that stops Open Source/GPL/Artistic License/SCSL

derived software and applications from running on Windows. These

licensing terms also prohibit Windows applications from running on

competing operating systems. In the interest of fairness and an open

market, Sections III.F. and III.G. of the PFJ should be worded to

allow ``open source'' applications to run on Windows, and

allow Windows applications to run on competing operating systems.

Open up the market and allow the end users more choices and more

options.

Respectfully submitted,

Jeffrey J. Dutkofski

MTC-00016255

From: Joel Martin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:49am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To: United States Department of Justice

From: Joel Martin

I would like to comment on the Proposed Final Judgement in the

United States vs. Microsoft according to the terms of the Tunney

Act.

INTRODUCTION:

The Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) does almost nothing to limit

Microsoft's illegal practices. In fact, many aspects of the PFJ

encourage Microsoft to continue in their long history of limiting

competition and harming the public good. The problems with the PFJ

are so numerous that the entire PFJ should be scrapped and re-

written. In this document I will enumerate a subset of the many

problems with the PFJ.

DEFINITIONS (PFJ section IV):

API-API is so narrowly defined that Microsoft will simply

change their naming

[[Page 26220]]

scheme to evade the remedies. API should be defined in the industry

accepted manner to include all interfaces to all software products

that Microsoft distributes.

Microsoft Middleware Product-at the very least this list

should include all of Microsoft's .NET family of products. A more

reasonable change would be to actually define this so that new

middleware products that Microsoft introduces are covered by this

definition.

Windows Operating System Product-again, the definition in

the PFJ is a list of specific products. First of all, this term

should be changed to ``Operating System Product''. A

proper definition should be developed that covers all Windows XP

versions, all Windows 2000 versions, all portable versions of

Windows such as Windows XP tablet PC and the X-Box Operating System.

All of these products need to be covered so that the judgement

protects and corrects now and into the future.

ACTIONS TOWARDS THIRD PARTIES:

The remedies outlined in the PFJ that apply to Microsoft's

actions towards other parties need to be expanded and strengthened.

In the current form it is impotent and narrow. Microsoft should not

be able to punish any OEM or third party for the way they customize

their systems with or without Microsoft software. Microsoft should

be required to publish their prices for all OEM's and third parties,

NOT just the largest 20 OEMs as stated in the PFJ. Also, Microsoft

should be prohibited from retaliating against OEMs and third parties

in other ways than just price gouging. For example, Microsoft should

not be allowed to give discounts on other products to OEMs that do

not sell pre-configured systems with alternate operating systems.

One particularly glaring problem in the PFJ is Section III.A.2 which

allows Microsoft to retaliate against an OEM that sells systems with

a competing Operating System but no Microsoft Operating System. This

hole in the PFJ is subtle but pernicious and is reason enough to

nullify this version of the PFJ.

EULAS (End User Licenses):

Microsoft has a history of using EULAs to create fear and

uncertainty for competitors. These agreements regularly prohibit

interoberability, exclude Open Source products, and the prohibit the

development of certain types of competing and interoperating

products. The PFJ does not address this issue of Microsoft's anti-

competitive EULAs.

PROPOSED CHANGES:

The list of problems goes on and on but I will conclude with

some recommendation for some additions to the PFJ that may help get

this document to a state that will actually contribute to the public

good.

- Microsoft must fully document all their APIs including the

following: all OS APIs and OS utility APIs including the Windows

Installer, Internet Explorer APIs, Outlook APIs, all Office APIs,

the DirectX suite of APIs, etc.

- Microsoft must document all document formats fully. This

includes the following document formats: MS Word, MS Powerpoint, MS

Excel, MS Visio, MS Publisher, MS Project, etc.

- Microsoft must fully document their network protocols

including: Outlook to Exchange, SMB/CIFS protocol, Advanced

Directory services, etc.

- Microsoft must provide the above documentation on APIs in a

reasonable time frame. This means that the documentation must be

available to competitors as soon as it is available to other product

groups within Microsoft to do developement. This will prevent other

product groups within Microsoft from having an unfair lead time on

product development compared to Microsoft competitors.

- Microsoft must port all their major desktop applications to

non-Microsoft Operating Products that hold the three largest desktop

market shares. The versions of the applications on those Operating

Products shall not be released more than two months after the

release on Microsoft Operating Products. This would mean that the MS

Office suite, MS Visio, MS Publisher, MS Project, MS Internet

Explorer, MS Outlook, MS Outlook Express, etc, would be ported and

up to date on the Macintosh, and probably Linux, etc. They must be

available for similar pricing as on Microsoft Operating Products.

- Microsoft must port all their major server applications to

non-Microsoft Operating Products that hold the four largest server

market shares. The versions of the applications on those Operating

Products shall not be released more than two months after the

release on Microsoft Operating Products. This would mean that the MS

Exchange, MS IIS, MS Enterprise Server, MS Small Business Server, MS

SQL Server, MS Systems Management Server, MS Content Management

Server, MS Commerce Server, MS Proxy Server, MS SharePoint Portal

Server, MS BizTalk Server, MS Host Intergration Server, etc. would

be ported and up to date on Linux, Sun Solaris, HP HP/UX, etc.

Joel Martin-System Software Engineer

Compaq Computer Corporation

110 Spit Brook Rd, ZKO3-3/U14

Nashua, NH 03062-2698

[email protected] 603.884.5061

MTC-00016257

From: Josh Bright

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:50am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea.

MTC-00016258

From: Will Foy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:50am

Subject: No to the Settlement

As part of my duty as a citizen, I respond to your request for

public comment regarding the proposed settlement to the US v

Microsoft, as well as the assorted state cases v. Microsoft.

I call for the US Government to stand firm in its resolution

against an illegally maintained monopoly. Do not settle without

firm- and severe-consequences for Microsoft should it

violate any other law. Microsoft has shown repeatedly its disdain

for United States Law, as well of that of many states. It is likely

and expected that if Microsoft emerges from these Anti-trust

proceedings relatively unscathed, then it will violate the law

again, it will cost US taxpayers and consumers, and it will stagnate

innovation in the PC platform.

Instead of allowing Microsoft to have a wonderful outcome to

this case, force them instead to open their API's, force them to

open their source code. Even if the source is open, they may still

compete. Let the best software development companies win. It opens

the marketplace, and it is NOTHING close to corporate communism as

recent Microsoft-sponsored ads and lobbying have suggested.

Regardless of what you do after this, I urge you in the

strongest possible way to reject the proposed settlement and try

again, this time, acting in the best interest of consumers, not

business.

Thanks so much for your time and attention in this very crucial

matter to the whole technology industry.

Yours,

William Andrew Foy

9757 Concord Church Rd

Lewisville, NC 27023-NC Fifth District

336.946.2606

MTC-00016259

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:50am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The proposed settlement is not adequate punishment for previous

and continued blatant abuse of monopolistic power by Microsoft. I am

a small business owner (10 years). These actions set precendents.

Please consider a more dutiful punishment

Sincerely,

Joe Laffey

MTC-00016260

From: John Kroll

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:50am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Having reviewed the proposed settlement for the Microsoft, I am

appalled on how it fails to address many of the illegal business

practices listed in the findings of fact. Additionally, the wording

of the proposed settlement is so soft, that allows many potential

avenues for Microsoft to exploit to evade the spirit of the proposed

settlement. Given Microsoft's past behavior regarding consent

decree's, it can be safely assumed that they are aware of this and

caused the wording to be structured in this manner for exactly this

reason.

One specific example of this is the Technical Committee. Since

Microsoft gets to select one committee member who essentially has

veto power over the third member of the committee, this review

committee is unlikely to actually accomplish anything. Since

essentially this committee is supposed to serve as a parole board to

monitor Microsoft's future behavior, why are they permitted to have

any input into the committee composition at all? Certainly they

[[Page 26221]]

should be permitted to submit evidence or other material to the

committee for review, but why are they allowed to have input into

the selection of a majority of the board members?

Another example is the limitation that ``No provisions of

this Final Judgment shall:

1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third

parties: (a) portions of APIs or Documentation or portions or layers

of Communications Protocols the disclosure of which would compromise

the security of a particular installation or group of installations

of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights

management, encryption or authentication systems, including without

limitation, keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; or

(b) any API, interface or other information related to any Microsoft

product if lawfully directed not to do so by a governmental agency

of competent jurisdiction.'' This limitation would permit

Microsoft to hide many APIs needed for a competitor to build a

product by claiming the API or protocol specification is restricted

due to security considerations. Since the proposed agreement makes

no attempt to define or limit what material would be subject to this

restriction, it is apparently left to Microsoft to make this

determination.

Contrary to Microsoft's advertising, they have not produced much

in the way of actual ``innovation'' to the computer

industry. In fact, they have significantly stifled innovations by

other companies where those innovations would threaten Microsoft

products.

The Findings of Fact in this case clearly show that Microsoft

has abused its monopoly position in the software market. The

proposed settlement does little to address these past abuses or

prevent future abuses. In my opinion, the settlement in its current

form is definitely not in the public interest.

Very respectfully,

John Kroll

Systems Analyst

Milwaukee, WI

MTC-00016261

From: Drew Kime

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:50am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft

antitrust trial. The current proposed settlement does not redress

the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, nor inhibit their

ability to commit similar actions in the future.

The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only

formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will

effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly

position in the operating system market. This is especially

important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past

transgressions. Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing

to address Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions

that correct or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit

the future repetition of those abuses. This goes against the very

foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to commit

illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a

``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those

acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That

is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the

American people in general.

While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-

intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for

settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.

Sincerely,

Drew Kime

MTC-00016262

From: R. Sean Fulton

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:51am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As a citizen of the United States of America, I find the

Microsoft/Justice Department proposed settlement utterly

unacceptable.

Richard Sean Fulton

Pittsburgh, PA

MTC-00016263

From: Dave Damianakes

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:51am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I wanted to register my opinion about the Microsoft settlement.

Just for the record, I am an Apple user. I have known for a long

time that Microsoft has had a defacto monopoly and has exercised

unfair practices to remain dominant. Until the trial, no windows

user that I knew had any idea that there were other operating

systems available for Intel machines. In fact, they still are

unaware of IBM's OS 2, although Linux has been getting more air

play. And since the trial I have listened to venture capitalists and

startup owners who have been complaining that money will not be

invested in a company if they investors think that MS would not like

the software that would be produced, due to its competitiveness. I

think more and more, the world are coming to rely on computers, just

as they were doing with oil during the Standard oil trial. And I

think that any remedy short of breaking the company up is grossly

unfair and uncompetitive. (By the way, Microsoft has never been

innovative. They buy other, innovative, company's products finish

them, poorly by the way.) I think the company should be broken up

into a application company, an OS company and a networking (or

enterprise) company. It should not remain intact. To do other that

break the company up is to encourage its stranglehold on the

marketplace.

Dave Damianakes

[email protected]

Never trust a new endeavor that requires you to buy new clothes.

Dave Damianakes

[email protected]

MTC-00016264

From: Ryan Smith

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:58am

Subject: Microsoft settlement inadequate

The proposed Microsoft settlement is a travesty. It would be

laughable if this weren't such a serious matter. Microsoft's

behavior requires serious remedy, not just a slap on the wrist. The

future of the computer and internet industries is at stake.

Ryan Smith

Creative Director, Monster Labs, Inc.

[email protected]

MTC-00016265

From: Curtis Wood

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 11:11am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This proposal is not nearly strong enough or -restictive-

enough. The problem here isn't wether or not the Winodws operating

system can or should put this icon here, there or even (GOD forbid)

let you do it- that is just simply and plainly stupid!. The

problem is the business practices of Bill Gates-this

``proposal'' does nothing, he will simply find a way

around it or even ignore it-that is what he does; he's a shark

and he eats what he wants...

Curtis Wood

System administrator

Bluedomino hosting

Website: www.bluedomino.net

Office#: (361)887-7778x205

Email: [email protected]

MTC-00016266

From: Ryan Todd

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 11:15am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft

antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does

not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past,

nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.

The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only

formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will

effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly

position in the operating system market. This is especially

important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past

transgressions.

Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct

Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct

or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future

repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the

very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to

commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a

``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those

acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts.

That is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not

for the American people in general.

While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-

intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for

settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.

Sincerely,

Ryan Todd

Network Administrator

[[Page 26222]]

EFO Holdings, Inc.

MTC-00016267

From: Mark Horn

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:50am

Subject: Proposed Settlement is a bad idea...

Dear Sirs and Madams:

I am a network security engineer and US citizen. I've been

working with computer networking for 13 years. During that time,

I've seen Microsoft's ascendancy to power. During that time, I've

seen innumerable potential competitors get swallowed up by

Microsoft's anti-competitive practices. But most importantly, during

that time, I've seen friends and co-workers forced into using

software, not becuase it best met their needs, but because they had

no other practical choice. I've seen Netscape be the have the

highest demand amongst users, only to see that option precluded when

they tried to buy new computers.

Consumers have been directly harmed by Microsoft's

anticompetitive business practices. So I was very encouraged when

the Department of Justice filed suit, won the case, and prevailed on

appeal.

I am, however, disappointed that my government has decided not

to seriously consider the harm that this company has done to the US

economy through the maintenance of their illegal monopoly. The

proposed final judgement is woefully inadequate. It will do nothing

to increase competition in the computer software marketplace, and in

some cases will help to preserve Microsoft's monopoly.

I believe that the current proposal is grossly inadequate given

the findings of fact. I urge you to throw it out and replace it with

one that will effectively restore competition to the computer

software marketplace.

Sincerely,

Mark J. Horn

Charlotte, NC

MTC-00016268

From: James W Foster III

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:51am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Renata B. Hesse

Antitrust Division

U.S. Department of Justice

601 D Street NW

Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Renata,

I have seen Microsoft so totally crush any competition by not

building a better product but by threatening anybody that bought the

competitions product.

I agree that you have worked hard on this agreement, but I think

it falls short of enforcing the open economy the USA enjoys.

Also, I agree with Dan Kegel's analysis.

James

James W Foster III

Manager of Intra/Internet Development

Boss Jeffrey R. Allegrezza

vnet4605845

Corporate Intra/Internet Systems

WORLDCOM-http://www.worldcom.com/-NASDAQ:WCOM

500 Clinton Center Drive (Corporate Headquarters)

Clinton, Mississippi (MS) USA 39056

(601)460-5589 / vnet4605589 / (800)844-1009 /

FAX(601)926-5589

MTC-00016269

From: Ted M

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:50am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I have read the proposed Microsoft settlement and am astonished

that it addresses only future conduct, including no meaningful

punishment for Microsoft's past illegal conduct proven during the

trial phase of this case. Microsoft has effectively driven a

steamroller at 100mph through a 30mph zone, leaving crushed

businesses and the bloody remains of its competitors in its wake,

and the facts of that case have been proven in court.

What sane Court would let such a perpetrator go free without

severe punishment, warning them only to keep to the rules of the

road in the future, utterly disregarding that Microsoft accomplished

its goal of clearing its competitors off the road?

Punishment must be levied on Microsoft so the competition can

get back on the road-and-back in position to succeed in

the race. Microsoft must not only play fair (which it should have

been doing anyway!), but must be competitively handicapped for a

significant period to compensate for its illegal gains.

Gravely concerned,

Ted McManus

1624 Fordem Ave #202

Madison, WI 53704

MTC-00016270

From: Richard Finney

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:51am

Subject: Impose harsh penalties on Microsoft, please!

Ms. Hesse,

I believe the government should come down hard on Microsoft.

They use their illegal monopoly to stifle competition. They hurt

American middle class working folks. Strong regulation and

pushisment are in order to assure access to the desktop for

competitors.

Microsoft is like having only one cable TV company, or one long

distance phone company, or one cell phone company, or one airline,

or one car company. We need competition and fair access for the

little guy to the market.

Please impose harsh penalties and break up the Microsoft

monopoly. Guarantee the right for the little guy to place his

products on the desktop.

Richard Finney

MTC-00016271

From: Benjamin Blair

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

Date: 1/23/02 10:51am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am writing in regards to the Tunney Act public comment period

on the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement.

The proposed settlement will not prevent Microsoft from

maintaining its monopoly in the computer industry. The findings of

fact clearly described a pattern of corporate behavior that

evidenced little respect for antitrust law or public sentiment.

Though the proposed remedies themselves may be adequate, the

enforcement measures will not provide enough incentive for Microsoft

to fundamentally alter its behavior. History demonstrates that

Microsoft will not alter its behavior unless it is clearly in its

competitive interests to do so. The proposed remedies attempt to

force Microsoft to change its behavior in order to reduce its power

in the market place. This will not succeed.

The only measures that can be effective are those that

immediately change the competitive landscape, and then free

Microsoft to struggle for power in this new, more level playing

field. I agree with the court that a structural remedy is cumbersome

and not likely to be effective. A technological remedy, with

objective, quantifiable measures, is the only remedy that can be

both effective and in the public's interest.

The competitive advantages of an operating system monopoly are

twofold. First, Microsoft negotiates from a very powerful position

with OEMs and ISPs. Second, their application software can be

developed with special knowledge of the operating system and

(optionally) delivered with the operating system to gain better

market penetration. Any remedy must address both of these

monopolistic advantages.

While I do not claim to be able to construct a better remedy

myself, I think it is clear that any remedy must involve forcing

Microsoft to open all of its APIs and file formats. Any time two

pieces of MS software communicate out-of-process, the protocol for

their communication must be public.

Enforcement could come in the form of a court-appointed

authority that had the right to demand to see the source code of any

MS-published software and compare the documented APIs to the source

code. If they were not the same or if the source code is not

delivered within a few days, MS should be fined 1/356th of it's

profit (this can be calculated after the fact at the end of each

quarter) per-day until it satisfies the requirements. This would

ensure that the applications of Microsoft's competitors have the

same opportunity to succeed on the Windows platform as those of

Microsoft itself. Microsoft may maintain its operating systems

monopoly, but it will not be able to use to establish new monopolies

in other market segments.

Thank you very much for reading and considering my comments.

Regards,

Ben Blair

474 N. Lake Shore Dr. APT 4606

Chicago, IL 60611

312-464-1743 (home)

312-362-2478 (work)

A little about myself:

24 years old, and have been working in the computer industry for

the past 8 years. I have been developing software for the Windows

platform for the past 6 years. I am currently employed as a lead

software developer and system architect for an options trading firm

in Chicago, IL. I graduated from the University of Chicago in 1996

with a BS in Computer Science and a BA in Physics.

[[Page 26223]]

MTC-00016272

From: Chris Lamothe

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:52am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please do not move away from a structural remedy, which I

believe would require less dependence upon future enforcement

efforts and good faith by Microsoft, and which would jump start a

more competitive market for applications. If Microsoft is left to

exercise its own good faith, then self interest will prevail, and we

cannot allow this from a known monopoly.

Christopher Lamothe

Vermont

MTC-00016273

From: Joel Haynie

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:51am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I feel that the Microsoft Settlement does not punish Microsoft

enough for it blatant miss use of power. I also feel that the

settlement is only going to allow Microsoft to further squelch the

all ready loose grip of the Open Source movement.

Thank you for your time,

Joel Haynie

[email protected]

www.joel.haynie.com

MTC-00016274

From: Mikael Laakso

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:51am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think the proposed settlement is NOT enough to bring back

basic rights like freedom of speech and freedom of choice to

opensource software developers.

Yours, sincerely

Mikael Laakso

Bitstream Ky

Nelj's Linja 2c90

00530 Helsinki

email: [email protected]

tel: +358 44 5651805

MTC-00016275

From: Jed Harris, Pliant Ventures

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:51am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Renata B. Hesse

Antitrust Division

U.S. Department of Justice

601 D Street NW

Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Renata Hesse,

I am deeply concerned that the current proposed settlement fails

to move the United States toward a competitive desktop OS and

middleware regime.

As we have seen the current lack of competition poses major

risks to national security, as well as imposing major unnecessary

burdens on software innovators, businesses, and consumers.

Many analyses have shown clearly that the current proposed

judgement fails to constrain Microsoft's current abuses of its

monopoly power and permits tactics that will allow Microsoft to

maintain and extend this power.

Unfortunately, Microsoft has already demonstrated that it will

interpret such settlements in ways that make a mockery of their

intent. Any agreement reached must clearly and enforceably redefine

the playing field. Otherwise this process will only undermine and

call into contempt the effectiveness of our legal and regulatory

institutions.

Without an effective agreement we will not meet our needs for a

reliable software infrastructure, essential to national security. We

will not sustain a competitive and innovative software marketplace,

essential for economic vitality and our international competitive

position. We will not enable businesses and consumers to make the

most effective, and most cost-effective, use of computers. For all

these reasons I wish to register my disagreement with the proposed

settlement in the strongest possible terms.

Sincerely,

Jed Harris

Managing Member, Pliant Ventures

MTC-00016276

From: Schnitzer Productions LLC

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:52am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Renata B. Hesse:

I am e mailing you to express my support of Microsoft in the

current anti trust case against it. I believe that the only thing

Microsoft has done wrong is to be ``too'' successful, and

also to neglect contributing to Congressmen's re-election campaigns.

As a user of Microsoft software, I have found the power and

convenience and ease of use of their products to be exemplary. Their

prices are low. Example: A simple product like Microsoft Publisher,

which cost me $60 several years ago, has revolutionized my business,

making it possible for me to design all my advertisement, web sites,

order forms, brochures, etc. Microsoft was good at running it's

business, while it's browser competitor, Netscape, was good at

running to Washington. I don't think Netscape should be rewarded for

that.

And I don't think government has any business punishing

businessmen who are ``arrogant'' enough to believe that

they have a right to run their businesses as they see fit, as long

as they don't forcibly interfere with anyone else's right to do

likewise.

If you want to prosecute a true monopoly, then go after a

coercive monopoly like the Post Office. Now THERE is an institution

which harms consumers and forcibly excludes competitors from the

market. Ignoring the Postal Monopoly while persecuting Microsoft

reflects a concern about political power and authority, not about

protecting ``consumers''.

Yours,

Gary Schnitzer

5521 Greenville Avenue

Suite 104-565

Dallas, TX 75206

Schnitzer Productions LLC dba Violin Romance Recordings

www.moodmusic.com

MTC-00016277

From: Dave Damianakes

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:53am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement (one other thing)

One other thing: What is the point of having anti trust laws and

laws against monopolies, if we just leave the monoply intact?

Dave Damianakes

[email protected] -

Never trust a new endeavor that requires you to buy new clothes.

Dave Damianakes

[email protected]

MTC-00016278

From: Danny Espinoza

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:52am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom in may concern:

The proposed settlement between Microsoft and the US does not

sufficiently punish the company for its proven illegal, anti-

competitive actions. Microsoft's flagrant abuse of their monopoly

has forever altered the technology marketplace. The penalty must

reflect this fact.

Thank you,

Danny Espinoza

2601 Woodley Pl NW Apt 903

Washington, DC 20008

MTC-00016279

From: Dave Lyon

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:53am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Just to add my two cents on the settlement ideas being

discussed: I feel that every ``remedy'' that has yet been

suggested has been not a penalty but at best a delay for Microsoft's

monopolistic methods.The whole ``give software to

schools'' thing is ridiculous. Making copies of their own

software costs Microsoft maybe a penny per CD and makes a whole new

generation of computer users learn things the Microsoft way. If

anything this is an added bonus.

The remedy should not so much focus on a payment or compensation

of some kind as it should a restraint on Microsoft's business

practices. While this case has been going on, Microsoft has released

a new Operating System that integrates like no other before it a

slew of Microsoft programs like the Internet Explorer browser and

the Windows Media Player. In addition, built into the system are

hooks that tie into Microsoft's new push called .Net which aims to

remake the world wide web in the image of Microsoft. Any remedy

should in some way monitor .Net and assure fair business practices.

.Net will succeed (if it succeeds) because the whole model is based

on the idea that the normal person's operating system is Windows and

Microsoft leverages that fact to make it easier for other businesses

to implement .Net instead of competing platforms. In the past

Microsoft has bundled their own programs. Now they will effectively

be bundling the ``Microsoft Internet'' in the operating

system itself. That is wrong and must be dealt with in the

settlement.

Dave Lyon

TeachStream Web Engineer

[[Page 26224]]

www.teachstream.com

MTC-00016280

From: Piehl, Curby A.

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

Date: 1/23/02 10:49am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

In the opinion of this technician, the proposed final judgement

in the Microsoft anti-trust case is not in the public interest. It

allows Microsoft to continue anti-competitive practices while

providing for no effective enforcement mechanism should Microsoft

violate the already weak terms of the agreement.

I ask you to read and consider the information in the link

below.

http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html

Thank you for your time,

Curby Piehl

Help Desk Analyst

MTC-00016281

From: Fred T. Metcalf

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:52am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

I am greatly saddened by the so-called ``slap on the

wrist'' remedy being offered in the Microsoft anti-trust case.

What has been proposed is not even a slap on the wrist, it is a

release into the public sector of an unrepentant criminal

corporation. Criminal? Yes, having been found guilty implies having

broken the law, i.e., having commited criminal acts. I sugget that

the court make the strongest possible review of the proposed

settlement in light of the court decisions already made, and in

light of the damage done to parts of the computer industry over a

period of many years by Microsoft.

The proposed settlement should be rejected, and Microsoft be

made to pay for their breaking of the law-both financially and

in very strong conduct restrictions placed on their business

practices.

Frederic T. Metcalf

MTC-00016282

From: Myke Komarnitsky

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:52am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe the proposed settlement is a bad idea. I work in the

computer industry (I own my own company, focusing on web

development), and in my opinion, I believe the settlement would be a

net negative for my industry, and for the overall economy. I hope

that the responsibility you have in this issue will be discharged

correctly.

Thank you,

Myke Komarnitsky

President, Komar Consulting Group

Michael Komarnitsky Komar Consulting Group

303.818.3718 http://www.komar.biz

http://climbingboulder.com -

MTC-00016283

From: Marshall Lewis

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:52am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

In my opinion, the proposed settlement does little to force

Microsoft to change it's monopoly behavior, and in fact will allow

(even help) Microsoft gain a stronger market share.

Marshall Lewis

Senior Programmer

ScholarOne Inc.

(434)817-2040x172

MTC-00016284

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:53am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The proposed settlement is bad.

Microsoft buys-out or crushes competition and needs to be

stopped.

Andrew Klopp

Helpdesk Supervisor

Ultimate Electronics

(303)412-2525 ext. 1192

MTC-00016285

From: Mark and Connie

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:53am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement comment

Greetings,

I am dissapointed that your court has not adopted a structural

remedy in the Microsoft case, which I believe is the only long term

solution to adressing Microsofts past, and sure to be future abuses.

I have personally been affected by Microsofts actions. Previous

laptop computer purchases have forced me to purchase Microsoft

operating systems with the systems, which I neither want nor need.

Typically, Microsoft operating systems installed with new PC's are

``tied'' to the BIOS, making it impossible to sell the

unwanted operating system to recoup my additional costs. In

addition, Microsofts EULA prohibits secondary license transfers of

unwanted operating systems that users are forced to purchase.

Last year I purchased an intel server from the second largest

intel computer vendor, which ``builds to order'', with the

intention of running a custom written security application on

OpenBSD. I requested a machine without a Microsoft operating system

license to lower the cost, as normally the systems were preloaded

with Windows 2000 and IIS. I was told that my only option was to

have it loaded with Linux, at an extra cost of $1,000 over the cost

of the system with Windows 2000! I found it incredible that by

eliminating a Microsoft server license, and replacing it with

something free,would raise the cost by $1,000. I was told that the

extra cost was due to the extra ``integration costs'' of

linux. Since I had no intention of running Linux on the system

anyway, and intended on running OpenBSD, I insisted that it be

shipped with no operating system for a cost less than the Windows

2000 preload. I was told that their agreement with Microsoft

prohibited sending any system without a Microsoft operatnig system,

for less than the cost of a Microsoft preloaded system.

In addition, Microsoft also currently is limiting computer

makers from installing other operating systems in ``dual

boot'' configurations, due to restrictions on the boot loader.

This effectively removes customer choice, and insures further

customer ``lock in''. I realize your language tries to

adress this practice, but without an enforcement mechanism with more

power, vendors will simply cave in to Microsoft demands. Your

proposed pricing and technical disclosure language is riddled with

loopholes which will accomplish nothing to address future abuse by

Microsoft.

Thank you for your consideration

MTC-00016286

From: Greer Pedoe

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

Date: 1/23/02 10:50am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am Canadian, so I'll keep it short. Look around you: if it's

not owned by Microsoft, then it's going bankrupt at their hands.

They do not deserve a settlement such as the one proposed. Be as

merciless to them as they are to their competitors.

Thank you for your time,

Greer Pedoe

Computer Science Co-op Student

University of Waterloo

Waterloo, Ontario

N2L-3G5

MTC-00016287

From: The Real Enchilada

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:54am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

My name is Hal Black, I am a resident of Columbia, HID, and am

the Directorof Software for a small internet security company. I

think the proposedsettlement for the Microsoft anti-trust suit is

insufficient and will not break Microsoft's trust. Rather than

reiterate what has already been written, I have encluded

excerptsfrom Dan Kegel's excellent essay on the problems with the

settlement whichoutlines some of the major flaws with the

settlement.

How should terms like ``API'', ``Middleware, and

``Windows OS'' be defined?The definitions of various terms

in Part VI of the PFJ differ fromthe definitions in the Findings of

Fact and in common usage, apparantlyto Microsoft's benefit. Here are

some examples:Definition A: ``API''The Findings of Fact

( 2 define ``API'' to mean the interfacesbetween

application programs and the operating system. However, the PFJ's

Definition A defines it to mean only the interfacesbetween Microsoft

Middleware and Microsoft Windows, excluding Windows APIs used by

other application programs. For instance, the PFJ's definition of

API might omit important APIs suchas the Microsoft Installer APIs

which are used by installer programsto install software on Windows.

Definition J: ``Microsoft Middleware''The Findings of Fact

( 28) define ``middleware'' to mean application

software that itself presents a set of APIs which allow users to

writenew applications without reference to the underlying operating

system. Definition J defines it in a much more restrictive way,and

allows Microsoft to exclude any software from being coveredby the

definition in two ways:

By changing product version numbers. For example, if the next

version of Internet

[[Page 26225]]

Explorer were named ``7.0.0'' instead of ``7''

or ``7.0'' it would not be deemed Microsoft Middleware by

the PFJ. By changing how Microsoft distributes Windows or its

middleware. For example, if Microsoft introduced a version of

Windows which was only available via the Windows Update service,

then nothing in thatversion of Windows would be considered Microsoft

Middleware, regardlessof whether Microsoft added it initially or in

a later update. This is analogous to the loophole in the 1995

consent decree thatallowed Microsoft to bundle its browser by

integrating it into theoperating system. Definition K:

``Microsoft Middleware Product''Definition K defines

``Microsoft Middleware Product'' to mean

essentiallyInternet Explorer (IE), Microsoft Java (MJ),Windows Media

Player (WMP), windows Messenger (WM), and Outlook Express (OE). The

inclusion of Microsoft Java and not Microsoft.NET is

questionable;Microsoft has essentially designated

Microsoft.NET and C# as the successors to Java, so on that

basis one would expect Microsoft.NET to be included in the

definition.

The inclusion of Outlook Express and not Outlook is

questionable, asOutlook (different and more powerful than Outlook

Express) is a moreimportant product in business, and fits the

definition of middlewarebetter than Outlook Express. The exclusion

of Microsoft Office is questionable, as many components of Microsoft

Office fit the Finding of Fact's definition of middleware. For

instance, there is an active market in software written to runon top

of Microsoft Outlook and Microsoft Word, and many applicationsare

deveoped for Microsoft Access by people who have no knowledge

ofWindows APIs.Definition U: ``Windows Operating System

Product''Microsoft's monopoly is on Intel-compatible operating

systems. Yet thePFJ in definition U defines a ``Windows

Operating System Product'' to meanonly Windows 2000

Professional, Windows XP Home, Windows XP Professional,and their

successors. This purposely excludes the Intel-compatibleoperating

systemsWindows XP Tablet PC Edition andWindows CE; many applications

written to the Win32 APIs can run unchanged onWindows 2000, Windows

XP Tablet PC Edition, and Windows CE,and with minor recompilation,

can also be run on Pocket PC.Microsoft even proclaims

atwww.microsoft.com/windowsxp/tabletpc/tabletpcqanda.asp: ``The

Tablet PC is the next-generation mobile business PC, and it will

beavailable from leading computer makers in the second half of 2002.

TheTablet PC runs the Microsoft Windows XP Tablet PC Edition and

featuresthe capabilities of current business laptops, including

attached ordetachable keyboards and the ability to run Windows-based

applications.'' and Pocket PC: Powered by WindowsMicrosoft is

clearly pushing Windows XP Tablet PC Edition and Pocket PCin places

(e.g. portable computers used by businessmen) currently servedby

Windows XP Home Edition,and thus appears to be trying to evade the

Final Judgment's provisions. This is but one example of how

Microsoft can evade the provisions ofthe Final Judgment by shifting

its efforts away from the Operating Systems listed in Definition U

and towards Windows XP Tablet Edition, Windows CE,Pocket PC, X-Box,

or some other Microsoft Operating System thatcan run Windows

applications. How should the Final Judgment erode the Applications

Barrier to Entry?The PFJ tries to erode the Applications Barrier to

Entry in two ways: By forbidding retaliation against OEMs, ISVs, and

IHVs who support ordevelop alternatives to Windows.

By taking various measures to ensure that Windows allows the

useof non-Microsoft middleware. A third option not provided by the

PFJ would be to make sure thatMicrosoft raises no artificial

barriers against non-Microsoftoperating systems which implement the

APIs needed to runapplication programs written for Windows.

TheFindings of Fact (52)considered the possibility that

competing operating systems could implement the WindowsAPIs and

thereby directly run software written for Windows as a way of

circumventing theApplications Barrier to Entry. This is in fact the

route being taken by the Linux operatingsystem, which includes

middleware (named WINE) that can run many Windows programs.

By not providing some aid for ISVs engaged in making Windows-

compatibleoperating systems, the PFJ is missing a key opportunity to

encouragecompetition in the Intel-compatible operating system

market.Worse yet, the PFJ itself, in sections III.D. and III.E.,

restrictsinformation released by those sections to be used

``for the sole purposeof interoperating with a Windows

Operating System Product''. This prohibits ISVs from using the

information for the purpose of writing operating systems that

interoperate with Windows programs. How should the Final Judgment be

enforced?The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective

enforcement mechanism. It does provide for the creation of a

Technical Committee withinvestigative powers, but appears to leave

all actual enforcement tothe legal system. What information needs to

be released to ISVs to encourage competition, and under what

terms?The PFJ provides for increased disclosure of technical

informationto ISVs, but these provisions are flawed in several

ways:1. The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical

requirementsSection III.H.3. of the PFJ requires vendors of

competing middlewareto meet ``reasonable technical

requirements'' seven months before newreleases of Windows, yet

it does not require Microsoft to disclose thoserequirements in

advance. This allows Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware

simply by changing the requirements shortly beforethe deadline, and

not informing ISVs. 2. API documentation is released too late to

help ISVsSection III.D. of the PFJ requires Microsoft to release via

MSDN or similarmeans the documentation for the APIs used by

Microsoft Middleware Products to interoperate with Windows; release

would be required at thetime of the final beta test of the covered

middleware, and whenever a new version of Windows is sent to 150,000

beta testers. But this information would almost certainly not be

released in time for competing middleware vendors to adapt their

products to meet therequirements of section III.H.3, which states

that competing middlewarecan be locked out if it fails to meet

unspecified technical requirementsseven months before the final beta

test of a new version of Windows. 3. Many important APIs would

remain undocumentedThe PFJ's overly narrow definitions of

``Microsoft Middleware Product'' and

``API''means that Section III.D.'s requirement to release

information about Windows interfaces would not cover many important

interfaces.4.

Unreasonable Restrictions are Placed on the Use of the Released

DocumentationISVs writing competing operating systems as outlined in

Findings of Fact ( 52)sometimes have difficulty understanding

various undocumented Windows APIs. The information released under

section III.D. of the PFJ would aid those ISVs-except that the

PFJ disallows this use of the information. Worse yet, to avoid

running afoul of the PFJ, ISVs might need to divide up their

engineers into two groups: those who refer to MSDN and work on

Windows-only applications; andthose who cannot refer to MSDN because

they work on applications which also run on non-Microsoft operating

systems. This would constitute retaliation against ISVs who support

competing operating systems.5. File Formats Remain UndocumentedNo

part of the PFJ obligates Microsoft to release any information about

file formats,even though undocumented Microsoft file formats form

part of the ApplicationsBarrier to Entry (see ``Findings of

Fact'' 20 and  39).6. Patents covering the Windows

APIs remain undisclosedSection III.I of the PFJ requires Microsoft

to offer to license certainintellectual property rights, but it does

nothing to require Microsoftto clearly announce which of its many

software patents protect the Windows APIs(perhaps in the style

proposed by the W3C;

seehttp://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-patent-policy-20010816/#sec-

disclosure).This leaves Windows-compatible operating systems in an

uncertain state:are they, or are they not infringing on Microsoft

software patents? This can scareaway potential users, as illustrated

by this report from Codeweavers, Inc. :When selecting a method of

porting a major application to Linux, oneprospect of mine was

comparing Wine [a competing implementation of someof the Windows

APIs] and a toolkit called ``MainWin'. MainWin is made

byMainsoft, and Mainsoft licenses its software from Microsoft.

However, thiscustomer elected to go with the Mainsoft option

instead. I was told that one of the key decision making factors was

thatMainsoft representatives had stated that Microsoft had certain

criticalpatents that Wine was violating. My customer could not risk

crossingMicrosoft, and declined to use Wine. I didn't even have a

chance todetermine which patents were supposedly violated; nor to

disprove thevalidity of this claim. The PFJ, by allowing this

unclear legal situation to continue, is inhibiting the market

acceptance of competing operating systems. Which practices towards

OEMs should be prohibited?The PFJ prohibits certain

[[Page 26226]]

behaviors by Microsoft towards OEMs,but curiously allows the

following exclusionary practices:

Section III.A.2. allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM

that shipsPersonal Computers containing a competing Operating System

but noMicrosoft operating system.

Section III.B. requires Microsoft to license Windows on uniform

termsand at published prices to the top 20 OEMs, but says nothing

about smaller OEMs. This leaves Microsoft free to retaliate against

smaller OEMs, includingimportant regional `white box''

OEMs, if they offer competing products. Section III.B. also allows

Microsoft to offer unspecified Market Development Allowances

-in effect, discounts-to OEMs. For instance, Microsoft

could offerdiscounts on Windows to OEMs based on the number of

copies of MicrosoftOffice or Pocket PC systems sold by that OEM. In

effect, this allowsMicrosoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-

compatible operating systemsto increase its market share in other

areas, such as office software or ARM-compatible operating systems.

By allowing these practices, the PFJ is encouraging Microsoftto

extend its monopoly in Intel-compatible operating systems, andto

leverage it into new areas.Which practices towards ISVs should be

prohibited?Sections III.F. and III.G. of the PFJ prohibit certain

exclusionarylicensing practices by Microsoft towards ISVs. However,

Microsoft uses other exclusionary licensing practices, none of

whichare mentioned in the PFJ.Several of Microsoft's

products'' licenses prohibit theproducts'' use with

popular non-Microsoft middleware and operating systems. Two examples

are given below. 1. Microsoft discriminates against ISVs who ship

Open Source applicationsThe Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 7.1 SDK

EULA states.., you shall not distribute the REDISTRIBUTABLECOMPONENT

in conjunction with any Publicly Available Software.

``PubliclyAvailable Software'' means each of (i) any

software that contains, oris derived in any manner (in whole or in

part) from, any software thatis distributed as free software, open

source software (e.g. Linux) orsimilar licensing or distribution

models ...Publicly Available Software includes, without

limitation,software licensed or distributed under any of the

following licenses ordistribution models, or licenses or

distribution models similar to any ofthe following: GNU's General

Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library GPL{LGPL); The Artistic

License (e.g., PERL); the Mozilla Public License;the Netscape Public

License; the Sun Community Source License (SCSL); ...Many Windows

APIs, including Media Encoder, are shipped by Microsoft asadd-on

SDKs with associated redistributable components. Applications

thatwish to use them must include the add-ons, even though they

might laterbecome a standard part of Windows. Microsoft often

provides those SDKsunder End User License Agreements (EULAs)

prohibiting their use with Open Source applications. Thisharms ISVs

who choose to distribute their applications under Open

Sourcelicenses; they must hope that the enduser has a sufficiently

up-to-date version of the addon API installed, which is often not

the case. Applications potentially harmed by this kind of EULA

include the competingmiddleware product Netscape 6 and the competing

office suite StarOffice;these EULAs thus can cause support problems

for, and discourage the useof, competing middleware and office

suites. Additionally, since Open Source applications tend to also

run on non-Microsoft operatingsystems, any resulting loss of market

share by Open Source applications indirectly harms competing

operating systems. 2. Microsoft discriminates against ISVs who

target Windows-compatible competing Operating SystemsThe Microsoft

Platform SDK, together with Microsoft Visual C++,is the primary

toolkit used by ISVs to create Windows-compatible applications. The

Microsoft Platform SDK EULA says: ``Distribution Terms. You may

reproduce and distribute ... the Redistributable Components...

provided that (a) you distribute the Redistributable Components only

in conjunction with and as a part of your Application solely for use

with a Microsoft Operating System Product...'' This makes it

illegal to run many programs built with Visual C++on Windows-

compatible competing operating systems. By allowing these

exclusionary behaviors, the PFJ is contributingto the Applications

Barrier to Entry faced by competing operating systems. Which

practices towards large users should be prohibited? The PFJ places

restrictions on how Microsoft licenses its products to OEMs, butnot

on how it licenses products to large users such as corporations,

universities,or state and local goverments, collectively referred to

as ``enterprises'.

Yet enterprise license agreements often resemble the per-

processor licenses whichwere prohibited by the 1994 consent decree

in the earlier US v. Microsoft antitrust case,in that a fee is

charged for each desktop or portable computer which couldrun a

Microsoft operating system, regardless of whether any Microsoft

software isactually installed on the affected computer. These

agreements are anticompetitivebecause they remove any financial

incentive for individuals or departments to run non-Microsoft

software. Which practices towards end users should be prohibited?

Microsoft has used both restrictive licenses and intentional

incompatibilitiesto discourage users from running Windows

applications onWindows-compatible competing operating systems. Two

examples aregiven below.1. Microsoft uses license terms which

prohibit the use of Windows-compatible competing operating

systemsMSNBC (a subsidiary of Microsoft) offers software called

NewsAlert. Its EULA states ``MSNBC Interactive grants you the

right to install and usecopies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your

computers running validlylicensed copies of the operating system for

which the SOFTWAREPRODUCT was designed [e.g., Microsoft Windows(r)

95; MicrosoftWindows NT(r), Microsoft Windows 3. x, Macintosh,

etc.]. ...'' Only the Windows version appears to be available

for download. Users who run competing operating systems (such as

Linux) which can run some Windows programs might wish to run the

Windows version of NewsAlert, but the EULA prohibits this.

MSNBC has a valid interest in prohibiting use of pirated

copiesof operating systems, but much narrower language could achieve

the same protective effect with less anticompetitive impact. For

instance, ``MSNBC Interactive grants you the right to install

and usecopies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computers running

validlylicensed copies of Microsoft Windows or compatible operating

system.'' 2. Microsoft created intentional incompatibilities in

Windows 3.1 to discourage the use of non-Microsoft operating

systemsAn episode from the 1996 Caldera v. Microsoft antitrust

lawsuitillustrates how Microsoft has used technical means

anticompetitively. Microsoft's original operating system was called

MS-DOS. Programs used the DOS APIto call up the services of

the operating system. Digital Research offered acompeting operating

system, DR-DOS, that also implemented the DOS API, andcould

run programs written for MS-DOS.

Windows 3.1 and earlier were not operating systems per se, but

rather middleware that used the DOS API to interoperate with the

operating system. Microsoft was concerned with the competitive

threat posed by DR-DOS, andadded code to beta copies of

Windows 3.1 so it would display spurious and misleadingerror

messages when run on DR-DOS. Digital Research's successor

company, Caldera, brought a privateantitrust suit against Microsoft

in 1996. (See the original complaint, andCaldera's consolidated

response to Microsoft's motions for partial summary judgment.)The

judge in the case ruled that ``Caldera has presented sufficient

evidence that the incompatibilitiesalleged were part of an

anticompetitive scheme byMicrosoft.'' That case was settled out

of court in 1999, and no court has fully exploredthe alleged

conduct. The concern here is that, as competing operating systems

emerge whichare able to run Windows applications, Microsoft might

try to sabotageWindows applications, middleware, and development

tools so that theycannot run on non-Microsoft operating systems,

just as they did earlierwith Windows 3.1. The PFJ as currently

written does nothing to prohibit these kindsof restrictive licenses

and intentional incompatibilities,and thus encourages Microsoft to

use these techniquesto enhance the Applications Barrier to Entry,

and harming those consumers who use non-Microsoft operating

systemsand wish to use Microsoft applications software. Is the

Proposed Final Judgement in the public interest?The problems

identified above with the Proposed Final Judgment can be summarized

as follows:

The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing

operating systems Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to

Entry by using restrictive license terms and intentional

incompatibilities. Yet the PFJ fails to prohibit this, andeven

contributes to this part of the Applications Barrier to Entry.

The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and

Provisions The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret

APIs, butit defines ``API'' so narrowly that many

important APIs are not covered.

[[Page 26227]]

The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft Middleware

withcompeting middleware, but it defines ``Microsoft

Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version of Windows might

not be covered at all.

The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a

competitor's product-but Microsoft is replacing Java with

.NET. The PFJ should thereforeallow users to replace Microsoft.NET

with competing middleware.

The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it

defines that term sonarrowly that it doesn't coverWindows XP Tablet

PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-Box -operating

systems that all use the Win32 API and are advertizedas being

``Windows Powered''.

The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical

requirements,allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware

simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and

not informing ISVs.

The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to

ISVsso they can create compatible middleware-but only after

thedeadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is

compatible.

The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API

documentation-but prohibits competitors from using this

documentation tohelp make their operating systems compatible with

Windows.

The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation

aboutthe format of Microsoft Office documents.

The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software

patentsprotect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible

operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not

infringing on Microsoft software patents?This can scare away

potential users. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License

Terms currently used by Microsoft Microsoft currently uses

restrictive licensing terms to keepOpen Source apps from running on

Windows. Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to

keepWindows apps from running on competing operating systems.

Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large

companies,state governments, and universities) charge by the number

of computerswhich could run a Microsoft operating system-even

forcomputers running Linux. (Similar licenses to OEMs were once

banned by the1994 consent decree.)

The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities

Historically Used by Microsoft Microsoft has in the past inserted

intentional incompatibilities inits applications to keep them from

running on competing operating systems.

The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs

The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that ships

PersonalComputers containing a competing Operating System but no

Microsoftoperating system.

The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small

OEMs-including regional ``white box'' OEMs which are

historically the most willing to install competing operating

systems-who ship competing software.

The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) to

OEMsbased on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC

systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-

compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other

areas.

The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective

enforcement mechanism. Considering these problems,one must conclude

that the Proposed Final Judgment as writtenallows and encourages

significant anticompetitive practices tocontinue, and would delay

the emergence of competing Windows-compatibleoperating systems.

Therefore, the Proposed Final Judgment is not in the public

interest,and should not be adopted without addressing these issues.

Strengthening the PFJThe above discussion shows that the PFJ does

not satisfy the Court of Appeals'' mandate.

Some of the plaintiff States have proposedan alternate

settlement which fixes many of the problems identifiedabove. The

States'' proposal is quite different from the PFJ as a

whole,but it contains many elements which are similar to elements of

the PFJ,with small yet crucial changes. In the sections below, I

suggest amendments to the PFJ that attempt to resolve some of the

demonstrated problems(time pressure has prevented a more complete

list of amendments).When discussing amendments, PFJ text is shown

indented;removed text in shown in [bracketed strikeout],and new text

in bold italics.Correcting the PFJ's definitionsDefinition U should

be amended to read U. ``Windows Operating System Product''

means [the software code (asopposed to source code) distributed

commercially by Microsoft for usewith Personal Computers as Windows

2000 Professional, Windows XP Home,Windows XP Professional, and

successors to the foregoing, including thePersonal Computer versions

of the products currently code named ``Longhorn''and

``Blackcomb'' and their successors, including upgrades,

bug fixes,service packs, etc. The software code that comprises a

Windows OperatingSystem Product shall be determined by Microsoft in

its sole discretion.]any software or firmware code distributed

commercially by Microsoftthat is capable of executing any subset of

the Win32 APIs, includingwithout exclusion Windows 2000

Professional, Windows XP Home,Windows XP Professional,Windows XP

Tablet PC Edition,Windows CE,PocketPC 2002,and successors to the

foregoing, including theproducts currently code named

``Longhorn'' and ``Blackcomb'' and

theirsuccessors, including upgrades, bug fixes, service packs,

etc.Release of information to ISVsTBD Section E should be amended to

read... Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and

OEMs, [for thesole purpose of interoperating with a Windows

Operating System Product,]for the purpose of interoperating with a

Windows Operating System Productor with application software written

for Windows,via the Microsoft Developer Network (``MSDN'')

or similar mechanisms, theAPIs and related Documentation that are

used by Microsoft Middleware tointeroperate with a Windows Operating

System Product. ...

MTC-00016288

From: Rob Leary

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:55am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To: [email protected]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To: Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice

601 D Street NW Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Ms. Hesse:

I believe that the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement is

not a powerful enough remedy for the personal computer market or

U.S. consumers in general. The proposal, as written, is technically

flawed, and does not provide enough mechanisms to penalize Microsoft

for violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.

In particular, I believe that Microsoft must provide significant

technical details, a minimum of 6 months in advance, to all software

vendors regarding changes to the Windows APIs. Without this,

Microsoft will be able to make changes to the APIs, effectively

disabling non-Microsoft products, while introducing their own

competing products that work. I strongly urge the Justice Department

and federal courts to instead use the proposed remedy from the nine

dissenting states (http://www.naag.org/features/microsoft/ms-

remedy-filing.pdf) as a more reasonable, robust remedy that

will truly help promote competition and innovation in the

marketplace. Otherwise, Microsoft will continue to use it's monopoly

power to stifle progress, something we cannot afford in today's

society and economy.

Sincerely,

Robert Leary

[email protected]

MTC-00016289

From: t.gauslin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:54am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I have read the proposed settlement to the Microsoft Antitrust

case and feel that it does not provide adequate reparations to the

competitors and consumers harmed by Microsoft's business practices.

Their behavior has caused a good deal of harm to the computer

industry's landscape. A choice of one is not a choice at all.

Sincerely,

Anthony Gauslin

[email protected]

MTC-00016290

From: David Orman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/23/02 10:55am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am opposed to the current MS settlement agreement. The current

settlement does nothing to remedy to current situation which only

seems to be getting worse as time goes on. The language of the

current settlement is much to weak and allows infinite loopholes for

Microsoft run through.

I also find the naming of specific products in section III to be

counterproductive. If Microsoft merely comes out with a new version

with a different name and a slightly

[[Page 26228]]

changed API the entire section becomes pointless. Section VI suffers

from a similar problem. By the time this settlement goes into effect

none of the ``Windows Operating System Products''

(definition U) will be relevant to the market anymore. Microsoft has

scheduled 2 more OS upgrades in the next 2 years, merely g

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.