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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3AX02-40503

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Notice
- **Published:** May 3, 2002
- **Citation:** 67 FR 26208

## Text

[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-000162

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3AX02-40503. Public record. Not legal advice.