United States v. Microsoft Corporation; Public Comments; Notice (MTC-00020179 - MTC-00024448)
Federal RegisterMay 3, 2002
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26846-27482]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X02-60503]
MTC-00020179
From: Brian Summers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I am writing in response to the proposed settlement agreement
with Microsoft in the Anti-trust lawsuit. I want to express my
severe disappointment and outrage with the proposed settlement
agreement. This agreement does nothing at all to Microsoft. All it
forces them to do is to follow current law as it already is written.
It does nothing at all to remove all the power and influence
Microsoft has received by exercising its illegal monopoly over the
computer OS industry. How can you even start to believe that this
settlement is fair for anyone outside of Microsoft? You are
basically giving them a slap on the wrist, and saying, "Ok, we
caught you. Don't do this again now. You can go back to your
business, but play by the rules now." This action is akin to
catching a major drug dealing ring, arresting them, and then letting
them go, as long as they promise not to deal drugs again. And not
only did you let them go, you gave back all the drugs you
confiscated when you made the arrest as well as all their drug
money. Microsoft has a clear unfair advantage over any other company
in the operating system industry. Microsoft already received enough
of the fruits of illegally using its monopoly and has been able to
grow to what it is now because of this. Something needs to be done
in any settlement that DIRECTLY AFFECTS Microsoft's assets and
holdings, as well as its power and influence over the OS industry.
These aspects of Microsoft grew out of the direct result of them
illegally using its power. As such, anything that was gotten
illegally should be taken away, or at least an attempt needs to be
made to level the playing field in the industry. This settlement
falls very short of what needs to be done do so.
One of the major flaws in the settlement is that Open Source
projects like the Linux Operating System also should have access to
the communication and API protocols that Microsoft's OS's use. Linux
is currently the MAIN competition that Microsoft is facing in the OS
industry. No allowing Microsoft's main competition access to the
protocols simply because the system is Open Source makes no sense at
all. Linux is the competition and as such needs to have access to
the protocols as well.
Direct compensation needs to be made to the consumers of
Microsoft products. Prices on their OS licenses have not changed at
all. Because there is no competition, there was no reason for
Microsoft to give a reasonable price for their product, simply
because people had to use it.
The idea of letting Microsoft possibly make compensation by
purchasing computers and software for some of the country's poorest
school district does nothing but increase Microsoft's hold over the
computer industry. If any deal like this is made, Microsoft should
be forced to use the full amount of money in any such action to
purchase computer hardware only. The cost of the software to
Microsoft would be nothing, if Microsoft software was used. Because
Microsoft has the ability to make an infinite number of licenses of
their software, the actual cost of that software to them is nothing,
and as such does nothing to hurt Microsoft. All this type of deal
would do is create another generation of people to later purchase a
Microsoft product. Red Hat Linux had an alternate proposal that I
and many others feel would be much more effective. Red Hat proposed
that Microsoft purchase only hardware, and that Red Hat would
provide the software for the computers. Thus allowing many more
computers to be given to more schools and also teaching people that
there is more then one choice for a computer operating system. In
closing, this proposed settlement does NOTHING but allow Microsoft
to continue business as usual. We had a better settlement deal
BEFORE Microsoft was found GUILTY then we have with this settlement
after their guilt was PROVEN in court. This deal is completely one
sided and its side most certainly looks like Microsoft to me. What
do I as a member of the computer industry get out of this? What does
everyone else who simply had to pay outrageous prices for Microsoft
products get out of this? What does the computer industry get out of
this other then the fact that Microsoft will still be as powerful as
ever? How does this do anything to change the way things are? Well,
if you ask me the answer to all those questions above is nothing.
And that is what this settlement does, its does nothing.
Brian Summers
Unix Network and System Administrator
Software Developer/Programer
MTC-00020180
From: Michael Newton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am of the opinion that Microsoft is actually *Winning* this
case with the settlement proposed. It is the equivalent of a
slapping a murderer on the wrist. And yes, MS is very much a
murderer. A suitable punishment would be to force open all of their
API's, an API is the code base used to write the uppermost tier of
executable programs. The Win32 API, if open, would not only
embarrass the company (with their feeble attempts at programming),
but will allow any number of windows programs to run on alternative
operating systems. There is a project underway to create an API that
mimics the win32 API, called WINE, but life would be soo much easier
if the code-base was already open. Another part of this is the
networking/communications APIs. MS Outlook and MS Exchange Server
have a closed protocol. Opening this would pave the way for
alternative Office platforms, or actually using MS Office on top of
another OS (Beos, Linux, Solaris).
Have you ever really read the Microsoft licensing schemes? They
had this one scheme that flopped, not too long ago, that had 3
options:
1) You don't sign up for anything special. MS then jacks up the
costs of individual liscenses.
2) You pay a yearly fee, and recieve MS upgrades and liscences.
3) You pay a significantly reduced amount if you promise to use
ONLY MS products.
Everyone and their brother originally bought MS products because
they were cheap, and because they managed to worm into the OEM
distribution channels. They have become a defacto standard, even
though their OS is worth crap. Let us count the number of security
issues Windows XX has had in the past 6 months, and the amount of
bandwidth that the entire internet lost because of it. If the Gov't
doesn't hold MS's hand while doing business, to ensure that it is
done fairly, I will have significantly less confidence in every part
of this country. I swear... If you actually need something done
right, you can't write to anyone any longer because you will be
ignored. How many senators check their e-mail anymore? How much
thought will you (the reader) actually give this letter, as well as
the thousands of other letters you recieve just like this one? We
actually need computer literate people deciding on this case, and it
is apparent that we do not have that. In their stead, we have a pile
of lemmings that have been fed MS gestapo propoganda. Yeah,
ironically, I send this via Outlook Express, on the only windows
machine I own. I have had to patch this machine 20 times a month,
compared to the goose-egg off my two Linux machines.
Go figure.
Mike
MTC-00020181
From: RHS Linux User
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a student at NOVA in Virginia. I feel the proposed
settlement in the anti-trust case United States vs. Microsoft is
severely lacking in coverage and effective enforcement. I suspect a
symptom of Microsoft's tyranical behavior, and the lack of
restraint, is the flare up of Open Source development. Perhaps this
public movement could be used to penalize Microsoft and benefit the
public at the same time? Reguardless, I've seen Microsoft's tactics
over the years, and the current settlement does almost nothing to
curb their behavior. Microsoft will have completely evaded the
minimal restraints and enforcement within five years and have lost
none of its power to elbow competition out in the short or long run.
John Jones
MTC-00020182
From: Myles F. Barrett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed Settlement is outrageously deficient. The Microsoft
anti-trust offense is on a scale that boggles the mind. It will only
worsen as Microsoft adds new technological sectors to its
domination. Any sanction that falls short of definitively preventing
this stranglehold from growing is a monumental miscarriage of
justice. Please make the remedy definitive by breaking up Microsoft
into non-colluding units.
Myles Barrett
Software Consultant
[[Page 26847]]
Data Exchange Associates, Inc.
N. Chelmsford, MA
MTC-00020183
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
"welfare" for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user. This is just another method for states to get free
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Geni Casaletto
5665 S. Chestnut #8
Fresno, CA 93725
MTC-00020184
From: Robert Riemersma
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
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), namely:
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
advertised 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 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.
I also agree with the conclusion reached by Dan Kegel's
analysis, namely that the Proposed 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.
Sincerely,
Robert Riemersma
79 W 18th St
Holland MI 49423
MTC-00020185
From: Fred von Stein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:56am
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,
Fred von Stein
New York
MTC-00020186
From: John McGready
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe the current
proposal provides adequate remedies for those injured by Microsoft's
anti-competitive behavior. Over the decades hundreds, even
thousands, of small companies have been driven out of existence by
Microsoft's objectionable business practices. As was done with
AT&T, Microsoft should be severely regulated, if not subdivided
until its market share drops to an acceptable level, perhaps 33 to
40 percent (assuming one of its competitors is now also at 40%).
Until this is true of all Microsoft product lines, such regulations
shouldn't be realxed. Even after being found guilty of
[[Page 26848]]
monopolistic practices, Microsoft's behavior shows a complete lack
of respect for the law, a complete lack of remorse for their
actions, or even repentance for their crime. Strict regulation of
their behavior, coupled with the threat of incredibly severe
criminal penalties for noncompliance, is the only remedy that will
contain them- for it speaks the only language Microsoft either
knows or respects- the language of compulsion and enforced
compliance. The market must be able to return to its rightful
state- a balance born of countervailing competition. We don't
need another Enron. Imagine the damage to the nation should a
monopoly like Microsoft were to fail.... or even to have a bad
quarter.....
The risks of a monopoly are greater than merely the loss of
competition. Any benefit of monopoly is far outweighed by its
stifling of the great and diverse chorus of voices joined together
to form the rich tapestry that is the American Dream. I ask that you
not implement the proposal as it is now, but instead fight for the
small companies that best express the golden opportunities and
freedoms for which our armed forces are fighting even now..... save
the towers of this nation's economy from another remorseless
attack.....
Thank you for your time.
John McGready
3604 Drumore Dr. 1st Floor
Phila., PA 19154
MTC-00020187
From: Martin Wolters
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am very concerned about the ongoing settlement discussion with
Microsoft. After following the involved issues since a couple of
years from different perspectives (user, interested individual,
software professional) I developed a strong opinion on the required
action. Microsoft's monopoly has gone too far. Freedom and
protection of users in America and around the world need to be taken
more seriously. Any proposed settlement must put an emphasize on new
alternatives to the current situation. It can be
+ a push for other operating systems (Mac, open source, etc.)
+ a clear cut between Windows OS and Windows applications (e.g.
browser, office suite, media player)
+ or steps that ensure open standards when connecting computer and/
or exchanging information (e.g. files).
It also should be emphasized that the user is in control of the
software on his computer. That he/she can decide, which programs to
install or not and that he/she can buy computers from companies that
were allowed to freely make those decisions for them. Simply paying
some money or donating some of the software under discussion does
not solve the problem. I hope the involved government organizations
will put an emphasize on the interest of millions of computer users
and organizations.
Best regards,
Matrin W.
MTC-00020188
From: Lars Hedbor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I favor dropping the case against Microsoft-they've done
far more good for the economy of our nation than any minor harm that
they may have done to their erstwhile competitors. Failing this,
however, I would favor the settlement of the suit as soon as
possible, with the terms currently proposed under the suit in
question.
Thank you for considering my opinion in the decision-making
process.
Lars D. H. Hedbor
14230 S. Beemer Way
Oregon City, OR 97045
(503) 722-3849 land
(503) 781-0227 cell
MTC-00020189
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:04am
Subject: Microsoft
The continued abuse of the privilege of operating in an open
market by Microsoft must lead to some remedial action that does more
than simply "sending a message" to them. The Netscape
fiasco is yet another blatant example of Microsoft's idea of how
free enterprise works and if Microsoft does not pay substantial
damages and does not allow competitors to compete without being
threatened, what sort of precedent does that set for the future
direction of US business practices? Indeed, the message would be
loud and clear that such practices are actually permitted by the
government if a corporation is large and powerful enough to be able
to convince bodies, such as the DOJ, that any harm to that company
might harm the US economy; a specious argument since it purports to
show how vulnerable the US economy is... which it is not!! ( 9/11
has proven just how robust this country is.) Moreover, if other
systems such as Apple, Linux etc can be allowed to prosper from
their innovations, that is all to the good of the US economy as
diversification has always been what has made America different...
read successful and strong. The feudal system epitomized in the
whole Microsoft ethos is appalling at first blush and outright
dangerous in full light. Please show courage and fairness in your
deliberations but above all show us that, in the end, the interests
of the US, not Microsoft, are what must be protected.
Sincerely
Robin Willcourt MD
701 Aspen Trail,
Reno NV 89509
775 787-6550
MTC-00020190
From: Rommel, Florian
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 1/24/02 1:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I understand that MS is a big company and contributor to your
economy but i think this whole windows thing has gone too far...
noone will ever read this mail away , i just thought i'd let myself
known that MS , even though setting milestones in personal computing
history, is pushing this whole thing too far. it should have been
split and get this thing over with..
Q u a r t a l O y
Florian Rommel, Senior System Administrator
([email protected])
MTC-00020191
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
"welfare" for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user. This is just another method for states to get free
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen. Please put a stop to this
travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Peggi Reagan
4302 Dayton St.
Omaha, NE 68107-1016
MTC-00020192
From: zhenbinx
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time to settle! The lawsuit was brought up by the
competitors of Microsoft. There is no harm to consumers. I, for one,
love what has been integrated into Windows platform-having to
install daily use software and configure it correct is simply too
painful. Integration is the right thing to do. The competitors want
Microsoft die. They don't really think about consumers otherwise
they would have been more competent on bring out high quality
products. All companies should focus more on innovations and
engineering excellences. The information industry needs to leave
this behind and have the case settled.
MTC-00020193
From: Robert Bain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
As a professional computer programmer, I've been monitoring the
Microsoft Case with a great deal of interest. Like many people
who've had MicroSoftWare inflicted upon me over the years, I'm
hoping the power of Goverment can do what the marketplace has so
spectacularly failed at: making Microsoft Play Nice with the other
children. But I don't think the currently suggested remedies are
going to do that.
I still think Judge Jackson had the right idea: Break MS into
two companies, one for applications, one for OSs. (I'd add one for
[[Page 26849]]
hardware, but that's just me.) If that truly is impossible, I think
an equally good idea would be to force MS to reveal ALL their
Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) to any porgrammer who
wants to see them. They have a long and proud tradition of using
hidden APIs to get better performance out of their own applications,
while letting outsiders gimp along with the poorer-performing,
better-documented "official" APIs, which sounds like a
fairly ringing abuse of monopoly power to me. Good luck coming up
with a solution. You'll be flogged if you get it wrong, and you'll
get flogged if you get it right. But I've heard it hurts less when
you get it right.
Good luck,
R. Bain.
MTC-00020194
From: Robert Womack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let Microsoft alone. Note that this came via bellsouth.net and
not msn.com. Which means the little icon in windows did not
influence me in selecting an ISP. Without Microsoft and Bill Gates,
most folks would still be using 5X8 cards.
Robert Womack, 59 Acorn Rd, Rome, Ga, 30161
MTC-00020195
From: Eric Nehrlich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I would like to register my opposition to the proposed
settlement in the Microsoft antitrust trial. I feel that Microsoft
has circumvented such restrictions in the past, and has shown no
indication that they will not do so again with the proposed
settlement. They have consistently shown no inhibitions about taking
any actions necessary to protect their monopoly. If their operating
system were being compared to others on a level playing field in
terms of stability and usability, Microsoft would lose every time,
so it is clear that they are taking advantage of their monopoly
position. I believe that the settlement needs to include a
recognition of the immense damage that Microsoft has caused to the
computer user community over the past ten years. By crushing
innovation that could conceivably harm its monopoly, it has held
back the progress of the computer software industry. Users have been
conditioned to expect that their software should be expected to fail
all the time, that their computer needs to be rebooted at least once
a day, and that software must be hard to use. The amount of time
that the typical computer user (which is almost everybody these
days) spends fighting with their computer to get it to do what they
want is probably half an hour a day. Add that up, and that could be
a 5% drop in productivity that is directly linked to the inferiority
of Microsoft's products, products which have only maintained their
market position due to Microsoft's abuse of their monopoly status.
Any settlement needs to recognize the massive negative impact that
Microsoft has had over the past ten years, and punish Microsoft for
their behavior.
Thanks,
Eric Nehrlich
758 Kingston Ave. #203
Oakland, CA 94611
MTC-00020196
From: Waldauer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As allowed by the Tunney Act, I would like to voice my opinion
on the past proposed settlement and current anti-trust lawsuit in
the case against Microsoft. Previously Microsoft proposed a
settlement for the anti-trust trial. Their settlement included
roughly one billion dollars worth of software, computers, and
technical support to be delivered to schools across the country.
This proposed settlement seemed to me to be not much more than a
simple public relations trick and possibly even an attempt to EXTEND
their monopoly. The facts of the matter are that a 500 million
dollar donation of SOFTWARE to schools across the country would
actually cost Microsoft considerably LESS than 500 million dollars.
A donation of a $100 product such as a Windows operating system
license would only end up costing Microsoft whatever relatively
small cost of shipping and packaging. The rest of the $100 (probably
in the range of 90%) makes up the license, which costs Microsoft
nothing to donate. Another fact about this proposed settlement is
that if it had been passed, Apple Computers would have most
certainly suffered a huge blow by losing a large portion of its
current market share. Apple Computers make up, by recent estimates,
between 40% and 50% of all computers in American schools. Had the
proposed Microsoft settlement been passed, many of those computers
would have been replaced with Microsoft Windows machines thereby, in
all likelihood, permanently displacing Apple Macintosh operating
system machines from schools. I think there is an inherent problem
with an anti-trust settlement when a monopoly's sole (albeit very
small) competitor would be seriously injured. Lastly, I believe that
if one billion dollars were to be donated to American schools, I
feel that donations in the form of computers, software, and
technical support would not be the most useful form. I remember my
high school, we had a very full and up-to-date computer lab;
unfortunately, we lacked enough teachers and staff to keep the
computer lab open after school when the most use can be made of a
computer lab. I also remember my high school severely lacking desks
and chairs and an ever increasing class size. If one billion dollars
is to be donated to American schools, I believe the problems I have
laid out should be addressed first.
Although I found the previous settlement proposal to be nothing
more than a PR joke with nearly nothing to produce any results in
reducing Microsoft's monopoly or compensating the public for abuse
of that monopoly, I do believe that there is a solution to the
problem. Microsoft's monopoly resides in three software applications
that control three separate markets. First is the Windows operating
system itself. The main reason this monopoly lingers and is so
difficult to eliminate is because nearly every program on Earth runs
on windows, but relatively very few will run on any other operating
system. So in order to run your favorite programs, you need to buy a
copy of Windows. The best solution to this problem would be to allow
someone to run a program written and designed for Windows, but
without purchasing a copy of Windows. Every operating system uses a
set of API's (application program interface) that allows a
programmer to draw windows and objects onto the screen. The API
allows for just enough "hooks" for a developer to use,
but the API itself is hidden, only a description of what it does is
publicly known. Because of this, it becomes virtually impossible to
duplicate the Windows API. Step one to eliminating a Microsoft
monopoly is to force Microsoft to publish the complete source code
to the Window's API thereby allowing other producers to produce
operating systems that can run Windows programs and thereby directly
compete with Windows.
The second Microsoft application that unfairly monopolizes a
market is the Office Suite program, Microsoft Word. Although this
program is deemed by many to be the best of its kind, it is not the
quality of the program that has given Microsoft an unfair edge in
the market, it is instead the format that the program by default
saves documents in. The Microsoft Word document format is
proprietary, and in order to open a file written in Microsoft Word,
a person needs to have Microsoft Word (there are programs that
attempt to open Word documents, but these are not complete and
usually can only open the most basic Word documents). In order to
alleviate this problem, the specifications of the Word document
should be released to the public so that a document created by
Microsoft Word can be opened and edited or manipulated without the
need to purchase a copy of Microsoft Word. Lastly, the third program
that has monopolized an entire market is Microsoft's Internet
Explorer. Through monopolistic practices, Internet Explorer pushed
Netscape's Navigator out of the market. Microsoft also released web
authoring tools which produce webpages that can only be correctly
viewed with Internet Explorer. When the graphical internet started
to become popular, standards were formed on how webpages should be
formatted using the HTML (Hypertext Markup Language) code. With a
monopoly on web browsers, Microsoft violated these standards in
their authoring programs to solidify their monopoly. Although today
many alternative web browsers do exist, none of them
"work" as well as Microsoft's simply because so many web
pages are made to only be viewed in Internet Explorer. As a solution
to this, the rendering engine (the part of the web browser that
"renders" the HTML code to put the correct layout and
text of the webpage on the screen) of Internet Explorer should be
made public so that competing web browsers may incorporate into
their web browsers code to allow their users to view "Internet
Explorer only" webpages.
[[Page 26850]]
In all three of the mentioned markets Microsoft has maintained a
monopoly by forcing proprietary standards and formats and NOT by
producing quality products at low prices. In all three of my
solutions Microsoft would lose that unfair edge allowing other
companies to step in with competing products like never before.
Before a competing product had most of its focus on merely being
compatible, take away that edge and time and money can be spent on
making quality products at low prices (or free products as the case
may very well be, I.E. Linux, OpenOffice, etc.). In my proposal
Microsoft would be punished for its abuse, but more importantly, it
would take away the edge that Microsoft enjoys in order to maintain
their monopoly. My proposal would allow for competition to fairly
enter the market and hopefully would result in a better and less
expensive computing experience for everyone.
Alex Waldauer
MTC-020197
From: Fred von Stein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
The current proposed settlement (PS) is flawed. Because of many
different legal loopholes in the PS, Microsoft will be able to find
ways to easily exploit their customers and OEMs to their advantage.
Microsoft has already extended, or tried to extend, their monopoly
since the start of the trial, such as:
Microsoft .NET and MS's plans to force everybody to sign for a
MS Passport (which has already been proven to be a very insecure
system)
The failed attempt to turn an educational lawsuit into a way to
inject their software into yet another market
Imposing highly-restrictive EULAs and license agreements in XP
to try to milk as much money as possible from the end user and
businesses, which has already forced other governments (such as the
UK and China) to consider other options besides MS software
Using PR stunts to hide the fact that security was never a major
concern of any of their products, and never will be (even though
recent developments in Windows XP and Internet Explorer have proven
this)
Starting petty lawsuits to snuff out competition, in the hopes
of running them out of money (such as the recent Lindows lawsuit)
Rigging web polls and writing fake letters (from people already
long dead and buried) to influence business and DoJ decisions The
government's intentions in the PS are in good faith, but the
language puts too much faith in MS's interpretation of it. Dan Kegel
has a great analysis of the flaws found in the PS here: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html In short, I feel that it's the
DoJ's duty to revamped the PS and/or return to the drawing board, as
its current revision is not enough to stop Microsoft's anti-
competitive practices.
Fred Stein
MTC-00020198
From: John Chu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Given the course and time that legal proceedings have taken for
the Microsoft Anti-Trust Case, it would seem that Microsoft is
winning this war, even if it is losing the battle. States have
settled with Microsoft because they can ill-afford the monetary
losses that they've indulged into this case. Microsoft lawyers
cleverly petition to extend the case, and the Court keeps setting
new dealines for hearings. Then there are the settlement offers that
Microsoft offers, mere pittances that secretly hold a different
agenda, underneath a veil of altruism. Microsoft is both demeaning
and insulting the court's ignorance of the Software Industry.
Evidence has already been shown that Microsoft has reaped,
plundered, and murdered many an honest companies" viable
products, and yet it continues to strong-arm many of its competitors
today. It would seem that Microsoft's war of attrition is winning
out over the Justice Dept. and States. It will win, whether or not
it loses this case.
John Chu
Saddleback College Student
MTC-00020199
From: Scott Yates
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I just want to make it known that i believe the proposed anti-
trust settlement is a bad idea. Do we simply let any company that
gets in trouble now simply BUY their way out?
Scott Yates
MTC-00020200
From: Jonathan S Talbot
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed microsoft
settlement as it currently stands. Let there be no doubt about
Microsoft's widespread influence, as evidenced by their popular
windows OS. My primary complaint lies with the fact that the
problems associated with Microsoft's monopoly are not being
adequately addressed in this settlement. For example, in the
interest of protecting "intellectual property,"
Microsoft is not required to reveal protocol or interface
information, thereby hampering competing software companies from
developing products compatible with Microsoft's windows OS. This is
akin to a hypothetical automobile manufacturer who develops a
monopoly via an outrageous volume of vehicle sales, and is allowed
to produce inferior parts that require frequent replacement (to that
company's benefit), while simultaneously inhibiting production of
better quality replacement parts by competing manufactures, because
the part specifications of the monopolistic company are protected in
the name of "intellectual property." Unless Microsoft is
required to release such information, without the controlling nature
and costs associated with licenses, their monopoly is not limited
and is in fact enabled. In the interest of permitting competitors to
produce better "parts" for the omnipresent windows OS,
which would better serve the general public AND Microsoft, as well
as helping to preserve the viability of such competitors, this
settlement must be modified accordingly. Such a change would control
costs for consumers and more appropriately restrict the monopolistic
influence of Microsoft. Personally, I appreciate the ability to
choose new auto parts, at discounted prices, and from a variety of
manufacturers, and I would like the same privilege with my computer.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jonathan S. Talbot
Longview, TX
MTC-00020201
From: Geoff Kuenning
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:04am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I would like to go on record as opposing the proposed settlement
in the Microsoft antitrust case.
The proposed settlement has so many problems that it is nearly
impossible to address them in a brief note such as this one.
However, I will address two issues:
1. The PFJ does nothing to prohibit anticompetitive license
terms currently used by Microsoft.
2. The PFJ does not prohibit Microsoft's historical practice of
intentionally modifying its operating systems to introduce
incompatibilities with competing non-operating-system software
products, with the sole goal of making those other products unable
to compete with Microsoft's own non-operating-system products.
Geoffrey H. Kuenning
Assistant Professor, Computer Science
Harvey Mudd College
Claremont, California 91711
MTC-00020202
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear reader...
I write this letter to present my opinion regarding the
Microsoft anti-trust case. I strongly object this deal, I think it
was rushed, all because the justice department was busy dealing with
the september 11th attacks against the US. The deal struck between
the DOJ and Microsoft doesn't in any way:
1. punish Microsoft of its previous illegal acts.
2. restrict future monopolistic behaviour. Therefore I would
love to see a review of the case settlement.
Thanks for your time
Hashem Masoud
Citizen of the state of Bahrain
MTC-00020203
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
[[Page 26851]]
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
"welfare" for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user. This is just another method for states to get free
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
D Bryan
23 La Crosse Ct
Henderson, NV 89052-6608
MTC-00020204
From: Wade Farlowe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Wade Farlowe
4301 Wooded Way #18
Louisville, KY 40219
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I strongly support your efforts to end the Microsoft antitrust
litigation, now of three years in length, and implement the
settlement reached by the parties. I think this lawsuit should never
have seen daylight. I am not alone in this. The lawsuit is
unproductive and disruptive. By putting the suit behind us, the
American computer industry will be freed to innovate at the world-
leading pace it had held for many years. In order to end that
litigation uncertainty and wasteful expense, Microsoft has agreed
to, give up some of its rights, and make it easier for other
companies to work with its Windows operating system. Microsoft has
agreed to make its easier to remove the useful programs it includes
in Windows, such as Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player and
Windows Messenger. So, if AOL Time Warner wanted to contract with a
computer builder, such as Dell, to put Netscape Navigator and AOL
Messenger on the desktop and remove Microsoft's offering they could
do that. Microsoft has also agreed to have a technical monitoring
committee come into its business to check for compliance with the
agreement and check out any complaints by third parties. All of
these terms show a Microsoft that wants to cooperate for the good of
the American computer industry and to move on to better innovations,
rather than wasteful unproductive time in legal wrangling. I feel
you are taking the right road in supporting the settlement of this
case. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Christopher Wade Farlowe
MTC-00020205
From: Michael Watson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
"Surgeons must be very careful
When they take the knife! Underneath their fine incisions Stirs
the culprit,-Life!" Emily Dickinson wrote that. Or, more
bluntly, Robert X. Cringley wrote in a recent article for PBS.org
[1]: "If this deal goes through as it is written,
Microsoft will emerge from the case not just unscathed, but stronger
than before." In this sense, it is not Microsoft who will die
over a matter of a slip of the knife, so to speak, but everyone who
chooses to offer serious alternatives to anything Microsoft develops
and releases. Easily implementable MPEG (a type of audio and video
format) decoding standards for DVD video and audio could be trampled
to death if Microsoft is easily and freely able to push its more
proprietary formats on the DVD industry [2]. For example, owners of
non-Windows laptops with DVD players could be seriously affected in
the long term. (What if I can't play some DVD I want because there's
some obscure incompatibility in my DVD player? This is just one
important question that can be posed.) What may be the worst issue
of all is demonstrated by visiting the following URL: What you're
looking at is a list of just -some- of the major, KNOWN
security issues with Microsoft's software. You'll notice I pulled
this link from Microsoft.com itself. The dominance of Windows in the
United States is becoming a national security threat [3], and will
inevitably become worse as they're left more loopholes in court
rulings and established case law. Their seedier actions are rooted
in the loose and often downright retarded language in legal
precedents, and if they aren't provided with precedents that are
solid and thought-out, they will, as Mr Cringley wrote, continue
obfuscating the intent of courts in which they argue and rulings to
which they're told to adhere. I would have little problem continuing
on and on, but I am aware of the almost uncountable amount of
communication you must be receiving on this subject, and understand
that an extremely long-winded, rambling rant would not be in the
best interests of anyone but those about whom I seek to write.
Best regards,
Michael Watson
MTC-00020206
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
"welfare" for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user. This is just another method for states to get free
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen. Please put a stop to this
travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
John Haley
1203 West 103rd Street #144
Kansas City, MO 64114
MTC-00020207
From: David Gessel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Renata B. Hesse,
I oppose the Microsoft Settlement. It is far too weak and does
not protect innovation from the stifling effect of Microsoft's
monopoly, nor does it protect consumers from Microsoft's pricing.
Instead I suggest that all vendors of computer equipment which is to
be supplied with Microsoft software be required to offer the same
equipment without Microsoft's software and that they be required to
offer the same software to anyone at the price difference between
the hardware supplied with Microsoft's software and without. This
will prevent Microsoft from exploiting their market position to
force vendors to keep better and cheaper solutions away from their
customers.
Sincerely,
David Gessel
Black Rose Technology
5233 Foothill Blvd.
Oakland, CA 94601
510 290-3849 (cel)
510 536-0105 (fax)
MTC-00020208
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
"welfare" for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user. This is just another method for states to get free
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen. Please put a stop to this
travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Doug Millard
P.O.Box 870351
Wasilla, AK 99687-0351
MTC-00020209
From: Aaron Parker-Fasel
[[Page 26852]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:06am
Subject: Thoughts on the MSettlement
Would it be unreasonable to ask MS to sell technology BACK to
the original seller (this, of course, is in reference to the many
bought-out companies out there) for $1 or something to that effect?
This would CREATE business and more jobs, not to mention
competition, would it not? Another thought: Would it be unreasonable
to devise a settlement clause that specifically tries to decrease OS
market share? For example, they could pay for advertisements of
Apple products.
Aaron
MTC-00020210
From: insert random name here
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has imposed terrible software on >90% of the
market. The truth is, Microsoft products are terrible, and mand
illegal actions were made to obtain and keep that marketshare. I'd
go into the specifics of why Windows and Office have hurt my
buisness, but thats obvious, a plight heard in any office. My
platforms of choice, Macintosh and lately Linux, have suffered
directly with admittance of intentions from Microsoft. There are new
examples every month of Microsoft's impedance of superior technology
through illegal business practices. I reccomend division into three
parts, Operating System, Applications, and Internet software. I also
reccomend the "open sourcing" of propriatary protocols
and formats used to force users into uniformity.
Thank You for your time.
MTC-00020211
From: Stephen Kuenzli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam:
I believe the proposed remedy is neither a commensurate
punishment for Microsoft's misdeeds nor even a deterrent to future
anti-competitive behaviour. As a software and systems engineer
(programmer) at a Fortune 100 company, I bear the burden of
Microsoft's sins every day because much of my job is to make things
work together. Microsoft has proven time and again that they will
use their market penetration to push others out of a competitive
market by any means necessary. These means are well documented:
secret APIs, embrace-and-extend tactics that allow only Microsoft's
clients to talk to Microsoft servers, and closest to my work, the
banishment (via click-through licenses on some Microsoft products)
of Open Source programs and tools from *my* development environment.
I urge you to consider making Open Source Software (http://
www.opensource.org) and Free Software (http://www.fsf.org) part of
any remedy as these movements empower the users of software. If we,
the users of software, are sufficiently empowered, then Microsoft
nor any other entity will not be able to run roughshod over us.
Sincerely,
Stephen Kuenzli
Chandler, AZ
MTC-00020212
From: richard pauli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:11am
Subject: A computer operating system is a form of government
To the Courts,
Concerning the Microsoft Settlement:
I write to offer a single important insight into the Microsoft
Settlement that should help your construct a decision.. In the world
of digital computers, the computer operating system should be
thought of as a form of government. The operating system sets rules
and controls the flow of digital data much like a government set
rules for a civilized populous. Your charge is to define the limits
and structure of that digital government as it must intersect fairly
and equitably with our civil government. I urge you to halt the
further spread of such a tyrannical digital government-the
Microsoft Windows operating system.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Richard Pauli
614 W. Halladay St
Seattle, WA 98119
MTC-00020213
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
"welfare" for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user. This is just another method for states to get free
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen. Please put a stop to this
travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
cheryl hannah
2601 Perkins Circle
Glendale, CA 91206
MTC-00020214
From: Glenn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
I am writing to give my comments on the Microsoft antitrust
settlement.
I believe this settlement is counter to the interests of the
American public, deleterious to the American economy, and not
adequate given the findings of fact in the trial.
Microsoft's anti-competitive practices are counter to the law
and spirit of our free-enterprise system. These practices inhibit
competition, reduce innovation, and thereby decrease employment and
productivity in our nation. Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause
the public to bear increased costs and deny them the products of the
innovation which would otherwise be stimulated through competition.
The finding of fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly
requires strict measures which address not only the practices they
have engaged in the past, but which also prevent them from engaging
in other monopolistic practices in the future. 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.
Glenn Strauss
Network Architect and Founder
Glue Logic
MTC-00020215
From: Jason Reich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:07am
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 actions.
Additionally, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct
Microsoft's previous actions. Microsoft has been found guilty, but
is not being punished by this settlement. 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,
Jason Reich
San Diego, CA
MTC-00020216
From: Jeremy Leader
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'd like to add my voice to those pointing out the flaws in the
proposed Final Judgement in United States v. Microsoft.
1. In the absence of effective means of enforcement, the
proposed Final Judgement is meaningless. Microsoft has already been
[[Page 26853]]
found to have violated the terms of other agreements; why should
they respect this one?
2. If the proposed Final Judgement is modified to include some
effective means of enforcements, there would still be numerous
loopholes (such as those enumerated in Dan Kegel's Open Letter to
the Department of Justice, http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html).
Several of these loopholes are large enough to allow Microsoft to
completely avoid compliance with the intention of the proposed Final
Judgement. In short, the proposed Final Judgement is not in the
public interest.
Jeremy Leader
Arcadia, California
MTC-00020217
From: John G.Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:14am
Subject: AOL-Netscape
To Whom It May Concern,
My name is John G. Jones, I have been a reseller and consultant
for almost 20 years. I was an avid Netscape promoter for several
years (1994-1998). We were an ISP (Internet Service Provider)
and distributed Netscape Navigator Exclusively for connections to
our service (including their dialer software). We paid Netscape
something like $12,000 for this privilege, (for about 2000 users)
while most ISP's were providing this for free. Netscape did not
update their software with user fixes as often as Microsoft, nor did
they continue their dialer software which caused us to re-engineer
our Dial-in Modems. We initially had to spend weeks with Netscape
engineers to get their software to work with Windows, they finally
went with Shiva (a third party, which had mastered this technology)
to perform their Dial-up software operations. Microsoft has the BEST
products for Internet connectivity and Browsing, and our customers
want them. Netscape and AOL products are freely available to ANYONE
without much of a hassle (it is as simple as typing www.netscape.com
in any browser). It is important that an Operating system has a
basic browser and an Internet Connectivity client so a person can
get on the Internet and download the software they choose to use.
Much of the premise behind the lawsuit is the fact that
Microsoft has taken advantage of their ability to incorporate the
Internet Explorer Browser into the Operating System (OS). The fact
remains that they did not and have not ever inhibited AOL or
Netscape from installing their applications on the Microsoft OS. The
fact that AOL and/or Netscape feels as if they deserve recognition
or recourse from the industry for their inability to capture the
public is a farce. Netscape, for years, made their browser available
for free and indiscriminately charged fees to gain recognition and
market share for the sole purpose of selling their higher end
products. In addition, resellers or OEM's have the ability to add
ANY software product they choose to the original installation. It is
my understanding that AOL has filed a new Private lawsuit against
Microsoft. I wish to make some comparison material for your thought.
AOL has the predominant Instant messenger(IM) software available on
the market. It is free! They won't allow other companies to
integrate their IM product with theirs. What is the difference
between Internet Explorer and Netscape Browsers? Netscape offers an
Instant messaging product that is actually AOL's? I am a computer
reseller and every computer I have delivered to a customer has had
the option of AOL for an Internet provider, as well as, an option
for Netscape Navigator to be installed.
I believe that AOL & Netscape have inferior products and are
trying to use the legal system and media to win support from the
general public rather than have a good product that is easy for the
end user to use, and provide cooperation for other companies. Let's
spend these dollars we are using for procecuting Microsoft on
legitimate government purposes.
Thanks,
John G. Jones
Office (805) 688-8550
Cell (805) 689-5815
Fax (805-688-0535
MTC-00020218
From: Kurt Semler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do belive that Microsoft businuss practices have not been that
considerate of the need for compition, however what bussinuss does
act fairly in compitition? Nobody does. any gain is a positive one
in the bussinus world. Without the efforts of microsoft, we would
still be using IBM XT's running only 32Kb of RAM. Microsoft is
responsible for the technology revolution. Thier practices may not
be fair, but thiier products are top of the line.
MTC-00020219
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern-
I wanted to express my opinion in hopes that there might be an
appreciation for the value that Microsoft has brought to the market
and this country, in particular. I have been designing computer
software and hardware since 1981, having received a BSEE at that
time. My experience is one of a user and a developer. I would like
to begin by referring to several benefits, I personally have
received through Microsoft crashing of other companies proprietary
offerings.
1. Under Bell Labs" thumb, we were required to pay $70,000
for the Unix operating system. This was just for the OS. From my
perspective, Microsoft, by turning the esoteric into the mundane,
has repeatedly produced generation after generation of low cost
standardized operating systems. Bells Labs didn't do this certainly,
but sought to protect their super high margin software. IBM didn't
do this, nor did Digital (DEC). Operating system software performs a
magnitude more than it did two decades ago, yet, at $200 to $300,
costs 1/350th of what it did. Conversely, automobile manufacturers
during that same time, raised prices from approximately $3000 to
$30,000, a ten-fold increase.
2. Under Adobe's thumb fonts and typefaces cost in the
neighborhood of $100 to $200 per font. After Microsoft repeatedly
was unable to get Adobe to open the PostScript Type 1 Font encoding,
so others could have reasonably priced fonts, Microsoft created a
competing standard called TrueType fonts and made this available to
the world. Because of this single act, a thousand fonts can be
bought today for $29, rather than $100,000. Adobe had the
opportunity to act and they didn't. They used their power to extract
the maximum amount they could from the customer. Microsoft did
exactly the opposite-they exposed the fraud, created a counter
standard, and gave it to the world. My first set of 25 Microsoft
fonts cost me less than $15 total, at a time when Adobe was still
selling the equivalent PostScript fonts for over $2500.
3. A lot more credit has been given to the one-trick pony
designers of Netscape. Keep in mind that Netscape was formed, based
on a single product- a Internet browser. This browser had been
developed as a college project, as a variant on an existing freeware
Mozzilla browser. Microsoft was presumed to have had its heyday and
to be in decline by investors, who gave Netscape a valuation of over
$13 billion dollars-more than Microsoft, at the time. This
occurred in spite of the fact that Netscape had never had a positive
cash-flow in its existence as a company and had only generated a
gross revenue-if memory serves me correctly-of $134,000.
Clearly, investors did not have a clue what the technology was.
Really, it was only a different way of looking at the same data,
comparable to using pie charts instead of text to demonstrate data.
Microsoft understood that and integrated the browser into the
operating system, as they had done previously with TCP LAN
communications, modem support, text editors, memory managers,
management tools, and so forth. Virtually every company, like
Netscape, like Quarterdeck, like Procomm, like Banyan, each had
products that began as one-trick ponies that eventually were
incorporated into the Windows operating system. Instead of paying
$100 for the browser, $240 for the modem software, $99 for the
memory manager, or $695 for the LAN network software, Microsoft gave
you all those things for FREE. In the process, they produced
standards to which all companies could write software. In each case,
they improved and mass produced was originally was a niche product,
then they gave it to you for FREE. Like the breaking of Adobe's
hammerlock on fonts, Microsoft also broke Oracle's gouging
capability, by producing a competitive relational database product,
MSSQL, at less than 100th of the cost of Oracle. If anything,
Microsoft, by its competitive nature, has benefited the market and
the user-and, yes, this has been at the expense of the one-
trick wonders. I could go on-Microsoft's ridiculously low
pricing of products, their single-handed rescue of the American
economy with super-productive computing tools and open standards,
and so forth. Almost fifteen years ago, I heard Bill Gates first
explain about Microsoft's vision of how diverse applications should
be able to share data. We take this as such a trivial thing
[[Page 26854]]
today, but this was such a major undertaking when it was first
announced-because it had never been done. Today we routinely
swap data between word processors, spreadsheets, Web pages, Photo
editing packages, etc. without a thought about the complexities
involved. It is all so trivial to accomplish, in many ways. But
Microsoft created that, AND gave it away. Technology, by technology,
they have had a singular vision of where computing should be going
and brought us there, every time making it cheaper for us, the
users.
When I started in graphics design, over 20 years ago, we
routinely sold systems to produce books and newpaper display ads for
$50,000 to $75,000 per workstation. Today that same workstation with
1000 times the processing speed and software with a magnitude more
capability costs less than $2,000- complete. This could never
have happened with Microsoft's unique standard-setting software. We
all have benefited by Microsoft's continued innovations and cost-
cutting products. The US economy has been in a dizzying spin, since
the day that the Microsoft trials began. (Yes, I believe there is a
correlation) The volatility will continue until we begin to allow
Microsoft to develop the next computing generation's products,
without continual legal harassment, for what is arguably a whirlwind
of innovation and competitive business strategies. It is critical
for the benefit of the United States economy. It is with enlightened
self-interest that the US government should come to Microsoft's
defense, because they have for the past 2 years been dangerously
wounding the goose that lays the golden eggs.
George Horrocks
MTC-00020220
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
"welfare" for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user. This is just another method for states to get free
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen. Please put a stop to this
travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Cardwell
235 Crescent N.E.
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
MTC-00020221
From: Lawrence Wade
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:14am
Subject: Microsoft Security, Market Penetration and The Lawsuit
[Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It has
been converted to attachment.]
MTC-00020221-0001
Hi,
I want to move my network entirely to Linux or FreeBSD. However,
I'm discovering problems in doing so. The biggest one of which is
that I must maintain compatibility with Microsoft Office users, and
I'm therefore forced into the same regime of upgrading Office to
support features that no human being will ever use in order to
maintain the ability to read their proprietary *.doc and *.xls
files.
Or to be able to watch streamed media on the Internet, which is
more and more in *.asf format, "advanced streaming
format". ASF is a proprietary format, a slightly modified
industry-standard AVI file, and will only play on Windows Media
Player. Of course, in order to be able to use Office XP and
therefore read files from clients, I need to run Windows. But that's
easily enough done, I had to pay for Windows (which I promptly
deleted) when I bought a new machine on which to run a Linux
webserver. In fact, in the past year, I've paid for Windows four
times because the various PC manufacturers won't (can't) remove it
from bundles, and yet I still need the machines. (I use Windows on
exactly *one* machine.)
Needless to say, I'm trapped. I am writing this e-mail on a
Windows machine.
Bandwidth, in the computer field, is a commodity like
electricity or gasoline. I pay for it as I use it. Every time
someone visits my Linux webservers, the communication between the
visiting machine and my servers consumes bandwidth, and I pay for
it. Every time someone e-mails me, their mail server contacts my
mail server, and we consume my bandwidth.
Microsoft software is notoriously poorly written, and full of
security flaws which allow (literally) children to write things like
the Code Red worm. Code Red, you may recall, attacked Microsoft IIS
webservers. Now, by the way Windows installs "features"
by default, there are literally thousands of people on the Internet
right now, running IIS webserver software without even knowing it.
Many who run IIS deliberately don't even know that there are known
vulnerabilities and self-propagating programs which exploit these
Microsoft flaws.
As a result, my webserver gets lots of visits (below) from
people whose infected Windows machines are blindly attempting to
infect my Linux servers. And, in the process, that costs me
bandwidth. Which costs me money.
You can imagine how much it costs me whenever some jackass
writes a Windows e-mail virus, a phenomenon which is nearly
impossible in any responsibly-designed operating system.
Companies which produce operating systems *should not* be
allowed to sell software or other services. And file formats (*.doc,
*.xls, etc.) should be based on standards devised by consortium
using the same RFC ("Request For Comments") processes
that brought us HTML and FTP and DNS.
What kind of gas mileage would you expect from your car, if the
car companies were owned by the oil companies? If Ford was owned by
Exxon, could an Explorer run on fuel from Shell?
I'm a staunch Libertarian, but this is too much: Break up
Microsoft.
Lawrence Wade
MTC-00020222
From: Silas.Humphreys.01@ bristol.ac.uk@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Although I am not a US citizen, I feel very strongly that
Microsoft should not be allowed to continue in their current
position, and am writing this e-mail to make that clear. Although
Microsft's products are very widely used (I am using a computer with
Windows running on it to type this), the current situation, with
Microsoft supplying both OS and applications, is unethical even if
not illegal. This market position allows Microsoft to decide,
without any consultation, to alter standards, causing other
companies/developers to re-write most of their output, causing
inconvenience and lack of competition. Also, Microsoft's near-
monopoly on computer Operating Systems leads to a falsely inflated
consumer confidence in Microsoft, distorting the free market. I
realise that this message may have no effect or legal force, but I
wished to make my views known. Thankyou for reading.
Silas Humphreys
MTC-00020223
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
"welfare" for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.This is just another method for states to get free
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen. Please put a stop to this
travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Peter Davis
10814 W. Catfish Dr.
Wills Point, , TX 75169-5057
MTC-00020224
From: Ryan Krueger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement with Microsoft is not satisfactory and
does not take appropriate action against Misrosoft. Microsoft must
be prevented from the same abuse in the future
[[Page 26855]]
in an aggressive and far-reaching manner. A fine will accomplish
nothing.
Ryan Krueger
555 4th Avenue SW
Hutchinson, MN 55350
612-554-4502
Senior Software Engineer
Marix Technologies
MTC-00020225
From: pdestefa@mouse@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:19am
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 responding to the call for comments on the revised proposed
Final Judgment. I respectfully submit that the proposed settlement
is inadequate. Please allow me to elaborate on one of the many flaws
of this proposal.
One of the core inadequacies of the proposed settlement is the
weakness of provisions J.1 and J.2, which provide Microsoft with
opportunities to withhold information concerning interoperability
from parties with legitimate rights obtain it. This is a serious
oversight considering the Findings of Fact, which demonstrate that
Microsoft has used interoperability of products as a weapon against
it's competitors. This weakness is also particularly egregious
because this type of information-referred to as
"interoperability data" sometimes-is a major part
of what has made personal computing and the Internet such important
influences. When this "interoperability data" is
published (and overseen by diverse committees or independent
organizations) it is called a standard. Standards are essential to
the state of computing technology. The Internet could not exist
without them. They are a foundation for further competition in
computing technology. More importantly, they make possible rapid
innovation in surrounding technologies. In view of this error, I
strongly urge you to revise the proposed judgment. A settlement that
is congruous to the Findings of Fact must not allow the defendant to
exert this type of pressure on the computer industry, again. This
flaw, and many others, are explained in greater detail at this
Universal Resource Locator: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/ -
Thank you,
Paul DeStefano
Portland, Oregon
MTC-00020226
From: Arlie Edwards
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:21am
Subject: "Microsoft Settlement"
I am of the opinion that Microsoft has done nothing but taken
advantage of the opportunity that this country offers to everyone
who wishes to use their ingenuity to better themselves. Microsoft
has done nothing but make its products more attractive and cheaper.
They have done a much better job of that than the automobile
manufacturers. If you applied the pricing structure to the auto
industry that Microsoft has applied to the computer industry,
automobiles would be selling for $2500 a piece. It is time to stop
the witch hunt against Microsoft.
Arlie Edwards
MTC-00020227
From: Douglas Martinez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:17am
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
I am writing this in regards to the Tunny Act public comment
period and the proposed antitrust settlement case in which Microsoft
was found guilty of abusing it's power as a monopoly.
As a consumer and a American I am profoundly upset with the
current proposed settlement which has made it's way to the public.
Microsoft was found guilty of abusing it's power as a monopoly and
it must be punished accordingly in order to fix the harm which was
done to the PC industry and tech sector as a whole. The proposed
settlement will only lead to further abuse by Microsoft and in the
long run and it will help Microsoft further establish a even greater
strangle hold in the OS market. At the same time Microsoft will more
then likely continue to do all it can to stifle competition because
it feels that it has the power and means to do so despite the guilty
verdict which was handed down by the courts. If government were to
seek a solution like making Microsoft to the likes of forcing
Microsoft to open it's file formats or if they were to only allow
them ( Microsoft ) to use open file formats in their applications I
feel this would greatly help fix the damage done by Microsoft to the
technology industry along with a few other well thought out
measures. All of which when combined together will hopefully open
Microsoft up so they would have to really compete on the merits of
their products instead of the weight they push around in this
industry. Which of course it has used maliciously to intimidate,
lie, cheat, and steal all in order so they can maintain their
bloated monopoly. Monopolies like Microsoft only hurt our economy by
denying consumers the right to choose and by victimizing/
blackmailing OEM and Hardware Vendors and the many Software
companies waiting in the wings who wish to offer a alternatives to
Microsoft products. All of whom are afraid to so because they fear
being bullied by Microsoft because of the power which it wields in
the PC world. Let us not forget that whatever Microsoft can't steal
( example : Sun's JAVA, ) it will try to destroy ( Netscape, Lotus,
Corel Word Perfect, Corel Linux, and many more software applications
and companies ) by using it's control of the OS market to push a
Microsoft only solution. I hope that our government would please
rethink the propose settlement so that the consumers and our
government will not be held hostage by Microsoft and it's dominance
in the OS market which it unjustly gained control of through the use
of illegal and abusive means as a monopoly.
Sincerely,
Douglas G. Martinez ( A Consumer, A Capitalist and Proud
American.)
MTC-00020228
From: zapa1a
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:18am
Subject: Why MS Needs To Be Punished
I am a computer programmer and used to be a PC support
technician. I support harsh penalties against Microsoft (MS) because
of direct experience I've had using their and competitors software.
During my work at the Franchise Tax Board/State of California I
installed Novell networking client software on Windows NT 4.0
workstations. When you wanted to install TCP/IP and IPX/SPX
networking software on the work station, the Microsoft operating
system required you to install their version first before you could
install Novell's. It seems to me that something was left off the
operating system that sabotaged competing software if it was
installed directly. Recently, another technician friend installed
MS-Office on his new Macintosh. The next thing you know, his
Netscape browser was giving error messages and his Works software
went dead. This friend is a longtime Mac user and support person and
something adversely happened when MS-Office was installed. The fact
of the matter is that this type of sabotage of competing software is
not surprising when it involves MS software. My friend has now
banned MS from his machine. While working at the Franchise Tax
Board, I observed management rigging software evaluations in favor
of MS. I since have come to learn that this type of favoritism of
certain vendors is common among state agencies and certainly does
not apply only to MS. I have read how MS is now
"lobbying" properly in Washington DC and it looks like
they will get the justice they have paid for. Having been raised by
a law enforcement officer, it is a shame to see law enforcement
personnel having to walk away from a crime. It seems that justice is
being denied by the people who are supposed to enforce it. Good luck
to you in your fight against crime. It appears that white collar
crime is at an all time high so hopefully that means an opportunity
to you and your agency.
Here's Hoping.
Ron Deluce
MTC-00020229
From: Eddie EDF. Ferrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to voice my opinion of the Microsoft settlement.
the company has a blatant disregard for fair business practices and
must be stopped before it is too late. they have demonstrated time
and time again that they practice anti-competitive strategy to keep
the other companies in their field at a disadvantage. would you let
one company have control over 90% of the gasoline in America and
then manufacture cars as well? ......then they could also tell
consumers that if you don't buy our cars and our gas, you car
probably wont work as well because we have engineered the fuel to
get 100 miles to the gallon in our cars, but 15 miles to the
[[Page 26856]]
gallon in other companies" vehicles? .........or better yet,
maybe the fuel wont work in their product at all. what do you think
would happen? that is exactly what Microsoft is doing to the
computer industry. please restore some order and good faith to the
technology sector.
thank you, Eddie "F" Ferrell
Untouchables Entertainment Group, Inc.
Tel: 201 767 6924 ext. 1
Fax: 201 784 3879
MTC-00020230
From: Nikhil Kothari
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/23/02 10:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Nikhil Kothari
591 239th Ave SE
Sammamish, WA 98074
January 23, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers-rather than bureaucrats and
judges-will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall
Street. With the reins off the high-tech industry, more
entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive
products and technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share
my views.
Sincerely,
Nikhil
MTC-00020231
From: ROD DICKISON
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/23/02 11:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
ROD DICKISON
10833 3RD. S.W.
SEATTLE, WA 98146
January 23, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice,
Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers-rather than bureaucrats and
judges-will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall
Street. With the reins off the high-tech industry, more
entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive
products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
ROD DICKISON
MTC-00020232
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW,
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
"welfare" for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user. This is just another method for states to get free
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
DONAL O. METTLER, Sr.
5941 EAST TEXAS STREET
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93307-2353
MTC-00020233
From: Frank Rytell
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/24/02 12:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frank Rytell
6867 Golfcrest Dr Apt 60
San Diego, CA 92119
January 24, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice,
Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers-rather than bureaucrats and
judges-will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall
Street. With the reins off the high-tech industry, more
entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive
products and technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share
my views.
Sincerely,
Frank Rytell
MTC-00020234
From: Steven Lobbezoo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs,
I cannot imagine that you really have something to say in this
mather. Each and every decent person would allways stop this
machiavellian behavour if he/she had the power and was really
working for common interest.
Since i must presume you obviously are doing the last, there
must be something wrong with the first. Now, that will not wonder
anybody if you take into account what kind of fascistic country the
USA is fast becoming.
Glad, i don't live there.
Yours truly,
Steven Lobbezoo
MTC-00020235
From: Moe Khosravy
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/24/02 1:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Moe Khosravy
NA
Saint Paul, MN 55101
January 24, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice,
Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry.
It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into
[[Page 26857]]
the business of innovating and creating better products for
consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations,
consumers-rather than bureaucrats and judges-will once
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to
create new and competitive products and technologies. Thank you for
this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Moe Khosravy
MTC-00020236
From: Andy Allred
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/24/02 12:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Andy Allred
415 newport way
Seattle, wa 98072
January 24, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice,
Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers-rather than bureaucrats and
judges-will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall
Street. With the reins off the high-tech industry, more
entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive
products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Andy Allred
MTC-00020237
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW,
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
"welfare" for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user. This is just another method for states to get free
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robin Harper
1257 Highland Drive
Oak Harbor, WA 98277-8004
MTC-00020238
From: Marlene Carrico
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/24/02 1:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marlene Carrico
42 Rill Brook Road
Griswold, CT 06351-3313
January 24, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice,
Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers-rather than bureaucrats and
judges-will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall
Street. With the reins off the high-tech industry, more
entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive
products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Marlene L. Carrico
MTC-00020239
From: MJ King
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 3:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am opposed to the proposed Microsoft Anti Trust Settlement. It
is far too lenient on Microsoft. Bill Gates and Microsoft have
stolen money from nearly every household in America. Bill Gates has
practiced predatory business practices while failing to support the
user, while failing to produce a secure operating system, while
failing to insure the end user can maintain the back up integrity of
their data from upgrade to upgrade.
Bill Gates on one hand has used the lack of regulation and
enforcement to his advantage, while on the other hand selling an
inherently flawed product and then hiding behind licensing laws that
deny the user any protection from buggy, leaky, and generally badly
written application and operating software. I believe Microsoft
should be broken 4 companies. (1) Consumer operating systems, (2)
Internet applications, (3) Application software such as business
suites, (4) Network operating systems.
Sincerely
MJ King
Big Bear City, CA 92314
MTC-00020240
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW,
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
"welfare" for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user. This is just another method for states to get free
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Harlan Muth
223 8th Ave
Marion, IA 52302
MTC-00020241
From: Dustin Heywood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The microsoft settlement is a joke, unless their software is
made open source and the beast pays for its crimes there is no
justice here. Bill gates and his entire board shoudl be shot and
replaced with trained monkeys who could do a better job at following
the law than they ever could. WPA should also be forced offline by a
court order.
MTC-00020242
From: Greg Buhtz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: U.S. Department of Justice
Re: Microsoft Settlement
The Proposed Final Judgement is seriously flawed and should not
be accepted as written.
[[Page 26858]]
As long as any judgement permits Microsoft to maintain its
monopoly in the PC Operating System (OS) market, Microsoft must be
enjoined to treat all OEMs alike, IAPs (Internet Access Providers)
alike, and ISVs alike so it does not artificially upset competition
in non-PC OS markets in which it does not offer a competing product.
The Judgement treats Microsoft partners and competitors unfairly
by singling out "the 20 largest".
In markets in which it does offer a competing product, it must
expose to competitors all OS APIs which it takes advantage of in its
own products. This requires a definition of what comprises an OS
API. I suggest that any program that is bundled with a Microsoft OS
as part of a single salable unit or which is required to make the OS
functionally complete for its intended purpose, which exposes an
interface which can be programmatically accessed (e.g. COM
typelibrary, scripting interface, or command-line interface), is an
OS API.
The Judgement permits Microsoft to define what is, and is not,
part of the OS. Since it is possible to incompletely document APIs,
if a Microsoft product ships (becomes available for use by non-
Microsoft employees) which uses an undocumented feature of an API,
the source code for that specific API must be made publicly
available on the Web to: 1. make up for the deficiency in
documentation, and 2. remove any inequity between ISVs receiving the
information before others. To determine if a Microsoft product uses
an undocumented API, the U.S. Government must retain the right to
reverse engineer Microsoft properties, and be required to do so
whenever a competitor requests.
The Judgement permits Microsoft to continue to take advantage of
its monopoly power in the most fundamental ways. There needs to be a
concrete definition of when Microsoft ceases to have a monopoly in
the PC OS market so that these special requirements can be
abandoned. This will encourage Microsoft to permit competition. A
minimum requirement is that there appear in the market competing
platforms that support a minimum set of functions which do not rely
on Microsoft products or services. The functions which are required
by the consumer market today are, at a minimum: email, web-browsing
(including animation, audio, and video data types), written document
authoring, file transfer, spreadsheet functions, action video games,
and non-technical maintenance. Linux is getting close, but lacks
consumer market momentum. The Judgement lacks a termination clause
that is strongly linked to the definition of Microsoft's monopoly
power. I'd like to comment on the harm Microsoft has brought to
consumers by its anti-competitive actions. We lack security because
Microsoft has ignored basic mechanisms introduced in competing
technologies (e.g. Java's sandbox security model and provably secure
programming languages). We lack choice from highly componentized OS
architectures. We lack integration because of proprietary file
formats, APIs, and communication protocols. Since the PC has become
a required utility for the American industry and citizenry, and
Microsoft has established itself as the gatekeeper for the quality
of access to this utility, Microsoft must be constrained to manage
that utility in the best interests of the public.
I want Microsoft to be able to profit from its innovation, but
not at the loss of innovations which are undermined, not because
they are technically inferior, but because they were not
Microsoft's.
Yours,
Gregory S. Buhtz
(408) 732-0624
[email protected]
MTC-00020243
From: steven.ferguson@ transport.alstom.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:28am
Subject: I am not anti-microsoft as I use there products. But the
matter of fact is,
I am not anti-microsoft as I use there products. But the matter
of fact is, what they done regarding the browser wars with netscape
was terrible to say the least. Myself and many people that I speak
to say the same thing, but because it is Microsoft they will get off
lightly as usual, or as the saying goes "money talks"
MTC-00020244
From: Robert Hencke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am against the proposed Microsoft settlement. As a student in
computer science, I take this issue very personally. Microsoft has
used its monopoly in the OS market to crush any competing operating
systems (e.g. Be (maker of BeOS, a pretty slick OS) was working on
agreements with several computer companies to distribute the BeOS
along with their computers, but Microsoft used its monopoly to
threaten computer manufacturers into not including BeOS. In the end,
only one company included BeOS with their PC, and even then it was
hidden from the user, most never knew about it. The proposed
settlement does not seem to address this issue.
Also, many open source projects (e.g. Samba and WINE) would be
threatened by the proposed settlement. Samba is vital for many non-
Windows computers to share files on a Windows network (Apple uses
Samba in Mac OS X). Section III(J)(2) would give Microsoft the right
to effectively kill these products.
This is one of many problems I can find with the proposed
settlement. Microsoft has used its presence to bully, shut down and
injure many companies and projects. This settlement does not address
Microsoft's previous actions, nor does it prevent them from making
similar ones in the future. This is an extremely critical decision,
one that will have a very strong and lasting impact on the
technology industry. I strongly urge you to reconsider your
proposal.
Sincerely,
Robert Hencke
Box 292 / 100 Institute Rd.
Worcester, MA 01609
(508) 341-0674
MTC-00020245
From: root
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that the proposed settlement is a bad idea and does not
effectively address consumer interests. Microsoft has not played
fair and will not have any incentive to play fair unless firm and
strong actions are taken. In my opinion, if Microsoft is not broken
into at least three pieces, the industry will continue to stagnate.
Sincerely,
David M. Karakas
MTC-00020246
From: Doug Meyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please show Microsoft that their restraint of trade and
monopolistic activities in regards to at least Netscape will be
punished financially. Also restrain them from such activities in the
future through appropriate rules and legislation. Thank you.
Douglas Meyer
MTC-00020247
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW,
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
"welfare" for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user. This is just another method for states to get free
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Charles W. Foster
25652 Dodds Road
Escalon, CA 95320-9580
MTC-00020248
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW,
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
[[Page 26859]]
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
"welfare" for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user. This is just another method for states to get free
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dale T. Hedberg
P.O. Box 368
Breese, IL 62230
MTC-00020249
From: Paul Komarek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I am a doctoral student in Algorithms, Combinatorics, and
Optimization at Carnegie Mellon University. My research involves the
fields of artificial intelligence and signal processing. I am
professionally and personally tied to the information technology
economy as a researcher, administrator, purchasing assistant, and as
an ordinary computer user. For this reason I have kept close watch
on the most recent Department of Justice v. Microsoft antitrust
trial. I have read transcripts from the depositions and trial,
numerous court reporters" views, and many related antitrust
and computer decisions. In every way reasonable, I have attempted to
familiarize myself with the applicable laws, economies, and social
structures that surround this and other information technology
cases. I do not claim to be a legal expert; however, I am a citizen
of this country, a member of this society, and as such appreciate
this opportunity to make my views on the proposed settlement known.
Two courts have already stated their legal opinions. Both determined
that Microsoft is a monopolist in the relevant economies. Both ruled
that Microsoft has illegally abused their monopoly position.
Furthermore, this isn't the first time that Microsoft's behavior in
certain computer markets has been called into question by the
Department of Justice. Because the readers of this letter should
already be familiar with this background, there is no need for me to
recall details. Instead, I wish to summarize my feelings about
Microsoft's position in our society, and why I do not believe the
proposed settlement will prevent illegal and unacceptable social
behavior by Microsoft.
The fundamental purpose of our capitalistic economy is to create
efficient markets which serve the needs of the society. The
preferred mechanism for creating efficient markets is fair
competition. Microsoft's past and present behavior suggest that they
have no interest in fair, or even legal, competition. They have been
convicted of stealing another company's software (e.g. Stac
Corporation); they have attempted to circumvent law with respect to
fair employment practices regarding temporary workers; they have
have been convicted of violating Java license agreements with Sun
Corporation with the intent to destroy the benefits to our society
that a platform-neutral programming language might bring; they have
purposefully deceived customers with respect to interoperability of
their software with competitors" software (e.g. the fake
errors reported by Windows 3.0 when run on Digital Research's DR-DOS
operating system, as documented by the pre-trial documents in
Caldera v. Microsoft); they knowingly and purposefully falsified
evidence during the recent Department of Justice v. Microsoft
hearings; they have publicly disparaged United Status courts, and
refuse to accept the guilty verdict received by the lower and
appellate courts; they continue to use their monopoly in the
operating system market to drive other Microsoft products (e.g. the
new Windows Media Player). Clearly I am leaving out many details and
further transgressions of the law and appropriate social behavior by
Microsoft. My point is that Microsoft is an unsportsmanlike cheater
in our economy, has shown and continues to show no interest in
reforming their behavior. Microsoft's failure to admit or even
accept the courts" guilty verdicts suggests that a strong
sentence, or settlement if possible, is needed to end Microsoft's
antisocial behavior. It is clear that the proposed settlement is an
attempt to bring quick, strong remedy to the ailing markets
Microsoft has stifled. However, the proposed settlement is far to
complex, with too many exceptions to too many rules, to be
enforceable without many long and expensive legal battles in the
future. Of particular importance are provisions relating to which
programming interfaces do not need to be disclosed. Quoting from the
proposed settlement,
"No provision 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;" and these programming interfaces may be withheld
from any part failing to "meet[] reasonable, objective
standards established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity
and viability of its business, (d) agree[] to submit, at its own
expense, any computer program using such APIs, Documentation or
Communication Protocols to third-party verification, approved by
Microsoft, to test for and ensure verification and compliance with
Microsoft specifications for use of the API or interface."
(these sections of the proposed settlement are quoted from an
article in an online information technology news service). It is
clearly, plainly stupid to allow Microsoft to establish security
standards which apply only to products released by their
competitors. Not only is this unfair in the best traditions of
Microsoft, but there is no indication that Microsoft is qualified to
establish reasonable security standards. Furthermore, this wording
can easily be construed as allowing Microsoft to withhold
programming interfaces from individuals whose work is not associated
with a business. This should not be ignored at this time when the
viability of volunteer-driven software projects is being tested in
our society. Though easily overlooked, charitable works by computer
hobbyists have an important role in our society, and a significant
impact on our economy. For instance the Apache webserver software,
which currently dominates the web server market, is not owned or
controlled by a business. However, it competes directly with
Microsoft's commercial Internet Information Server webserver
software. It does not require stretching one's imagination to see
that Microsoft could use the exceptions above to disadvantage the
freely available and redistributable Apache webserver software.
Microsoft would only need to identify a programming interface as
being related to financial transactions of any sort to invoke the
security exemption, and could then deny information about their
programming interfaces to the volunteer programmers participating in
the development and maintenance of the Apache webserver software.
The proposed settlement is of such complexity that any
enforcement will be thwarted by arguments about every fine point. I
have already established that Microsoft has repeatedly disregarded
the best interests of our society when making their business
decisions. It is my belief that Microsoft will use the proposed
settlement as a legal defense for future antisocial behavior, by
manipulating technical and legal interpretations in a manner that
violates the spirit of the proposed settlement. Furthermore, I do
not believe that the proposed settlement adequately anticipates this
behavior and provides appropriate enforcement provisions. I am not
proposing any specific changes to the proposed settlement, as I
believe the entire construction is flawed.
That the Department of Justice has agreed to this proposed
settlement deeply worries me. In my eyes, it appears that the
Department of Justice has grown tired of prosecuting their case,
perhaps for political reasons. Therefore, I encourage our government
and country to pursue a sentence for Microsoft which is created
through thorough, and above all, open proceedings guided by Judge
Kollar-Kotelly. I believe that this is our only hope for a sentence
which adequately addresses Microsoft's illegal and antisocial
behavior.
Sincerely,
Paul Komarek
MTC-00020250
From: Micah Groppo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft
antitrust trial. I feel that the
[[Page 26860]]
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,
Micah Groppo
MTC-00020251
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am AGAINST the proposed settlement with Microsoft. Microsoft
has wreaked terribly havoc on the entire personal computer industry,
and anything but a strong remedy will only allow more damage to be
done, and the existing damage to continue unpunished.
I am concerned about Microsoft sales to schools in general. I'm
concerned about the many actions Microsoft has taken to create a
monopoly on operating systems. I am concerned about Microsoft being
both a competitor and a developer for Apple.
Here is one example. I am a college teacher, and I just got a
brochure to buy Microsoft Office for a total of $44. However, I
would prefer to use Wordperfect and Adobe Persuasion-both
products which have been discontinued, becuase competing products
from Microsoft are included with MS Office (Word and Powerpoint).
Microsoft has killed off all the competition.
Greg Moore
Huntington Beach CA
MTC-00020252
From: Christopher J Grace
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To The Department of Justice,
I have looked up to Microsoft for a long time. I see the measure
of their wealth as the measure of the value they have created. I am
grateful to them every day I enjoy using their products. I respect
the immensity of the task of creating what they have. It feels good
to look up to them. I like to know that there are strong people
using their abilities to make life better. Seeing them persecuted in
court has been sickening. If they were forcing people to buy their
products at the point of a gun, or threatening competitors with acts
of terrorism, that would be one thing, but the only wrong I hear
them accused of is using their position in the marketplace to their
best advantage. Windows did not become dominant because of force.
Microsoft, nor the Government, stifled competition. It became
dominant because the vast majority of people considered it the best
solution. To see such success met with such hostility makes me
wonder what kind of world I'm living in, and how high I care to
aspire. Am I in favor of the settlement? They don't belong in a
courtroom at all. They belong on a pedestal.
Sincerely,
Christopher J Grace
1229 S Troy St
Aurora, CO 80012
303-750-1000
MTC-00020253
From: Christian Brandl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I DON'T AGREE
Ing. Christian Brandl
Salvagnini Maschinenbau GmbH
Abt. Software
Industriezone West-Strasse
5 A-4482 Ennsdorf
Tel.: +43 7223 885 760
Fax.: +43 7223 885 199
MTC-00020254
From: Lim Swee Tat
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement sucks. I'm amazed Microsoft is just let of the
hook for the amount of damage they have done to innovation.
Ciao
ST Lim
MTC-00020255
From: Karol Jamison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:48pm
Subject: Accept the Settlement!
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing today to urge you and the Department of Justice to
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement, which I have never
believed to be in the consumer's best interest to begin with. My
personal experience with computers has only been possible because of
Microsoft's and other's work to integrate technology into a single
package. If I had had to assemble my first computer from components
and drivers I would still be in the dark ages. I have always thought
that this lawsuit stemmed more from vindictiveness or jealousy than
real concern for what's best for the consumer. I won't even mention
the devastating effects on the technology industry or the economy as
a whole. (Although I agree with the many people that blame this
lawsuit for starting the recession)
Microsoft has agreed to a wide range of concessions in order to
put the issue behind them. The agreement is fair; the only thing
left is for the government to accept its own settlement.
During the negotiations, Microsoft agreed to a wide range of
restrictions. They agreed to allow computer makers the flexibility
to install and promote any software that they see fit. They also
agreed not to enter into any agreement obligating any third party to
distribute or promote any Windows technology exclusively or in a
fixed percentage. Microsoft also agreed to terms that extended well
beyond the problems that actually at issue in the suit.
Microsoft has given up a lot in order to put the issue beyond
them. They have made an agreement and are ready to move on. All that
is needed is for the government to accept their own agreement.
Please accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement.
Sincerely,
KarolAnn S. Jamison
403 154th Avenue NE
Bellevue, WA 98007
425-649-9292
MTC-00020256
From: Brent Tucker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the Microsoft settlement is acceptable as written. Let's
not drag the process out any longer than necessary by forcing
another series of revisions to an already pointless remedy.
Brent Tucker
MTC-00020257
From: Elliot Temple
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
i think the proposed settlements are a bad idea
Elliot Temple
MTC-00020258
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
My name is Aaron Henderson. I am deeply concerned about the
upcoming settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case. I have so much
to say about this case that I could not fit it all into a single
letter. But there are at least three arguments to be made against
the government???s case, the practicality of anti-trust and the
morality of punishing the able. First, the government claims that
Microsoft was engaging in anti-competitive business practices.
Exactly what concept of ???competition??? do the government and the
anti-trust laws hold? As far as I know, when there is a competition,
there are winners and there are losers. When Microsoft began
bundling Internet Explorer, Netscape had the vast majority of the
market.Microsoft turned the situation around without resorting to
government intervention. Microsoft was
[[Page 26861]]
winning, honestly; consequently their competitors (who were losing
because they were unable to compete) are now asking the government
to stop Microsoft lest they actually win. This is the equivalent of
a golf player, unable to compete with Tiger Woods, who asks someone
to break Woods??? legs, lest Woods win. Remember, it was the
competitors who brought the suit, not the consumers whom they claim
to want to protect. Curious, is it not,how their selfless protection
of us conveniently removes their greatestcompetitor?
???But whatif they win???? cry our would-be protectors. Well,
that means we consumers have received what we wanted. We have voted,
with our dollars, to support Microsoft, not their competitors. If
the goal of the government is to protect the consumers, should they
not be on Microsoft???s side? After all, they are the ones who have
responded best to the consumer. The less competent losers
(henceforward ???the losers???) in this competition should not be
foisted on an unwillingpublic because they are less competent. What
kind of a world would that be? A world where competition is ruled by
the less able is a world where people would compete to see who could
do the shoddiest job, where the winner of such a contest is the
biggest, laziest slacker, whose reward is money extorted at the
point of a gun from those who committed the unspeakable crime of
being good at what they do. How dare they! How is a law that creates
this situation practical?
This leads me to my last, most important point. How is a law
that creates the above situation moral? If morality is the sanction
of life and a measure of someone???s fitness to exist, what sort of
life is the one described above? What sort of person would desire to
live by the effort they did not exert? If no one else will say it, I
will. It is only the unfit, the unsanctified, in short, the immoral
who choose to live on what they have not chosen to do. The losers
are now asking to be compensated for their lack of ability. It is
immoral. To reward failure is immoral and impractical; it violates
the rights of consumers and the able, honest producers. Do not, I
beg all who have power in this case, do not punish Microsoft.
Ability is neither a vice nor a burden.
Sincerely,
Aaron Henderson.
Email:[email protected]
MTC-00020259
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Just want to let you know that everyone who played a part in
letting Micro$oft off scot-free after it was proven that they broke
the law, is loosing my vote.
Ben
University Student
Currently loosing faith in the American legal system
MTC-00020260
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW,
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
"welfare" for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lori Buvinghausen
590 Armenta
Santa Fe, NM 87505
MTC-00020261
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW,
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
"welfare" for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jon Saboe
3506 Grantley Road
Baltimore, MD 21215-7340
MTC-00020262
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
"welfare" for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Edward J. Ayers
2405 Queenaire Ln.
Modesto, CA 95350-1939
MTC-00020263
From: donnorman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:33am
Subject: Microsoft suit
Stop the idiotic witchhunt. Let the socialists at AOL, Sun,
Oracle etc earn their money the old fashioned way. Earn it, don't
try to steal with the help of the government. The state AG's are a
bunch of fools.
MTC-00020264
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
"welfare" for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Cecilia E. Larson
3201 Pine Rd NE #247
Bremerton, WA 98310-2189
MTC-00020265
From: Thinker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
You asked for commentary, this is mine..
I feel that the Microsoft settlement should include in it a
provision that would prevent them from having Windows automatically
associate file types with their own applications upon any number of
unrelated events.
[[Page 26862]]
Having this be the "default" behavior gives them an
opportunity to have their software essentially (for many users)
"remove" competing products. . making them
unusable..
Ideally, Windows should also be sold in a stripped down form
with no built-in hooks to web browsers.. They use this to launch IE
against people's will, and using Captive-X or other built-in hooks
most people don't know about, upload. .essentially exchange
privacy-compromising information with their own servers. . This
is wrong.
Netscape and Internet Exploiter as well as others should be
treated equally and mime types/file associations should be
controllable by an external application.
Also they should be prevented from installing what is
essentially spy-ware in their software as they seem to be doing now.
Barely a week goes by without news of another backdoor that they
have built into Windows. Of course they claim that these
"Trojan horses" are bugs. But given the fact that the
proffered "fixes" often don't fix the holes they purport
to repair, and the number..(there have been so many it cannot be
simple incompetence.) I think that it's clear that they have
criminal intent. They should be prosecuted under the anti-hacking
laws for breaking into people's systems.
Thank you, and "good luck",
Sheldon Pannisi
MTC-00020266
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
"welfare" for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
John Elle
10428 Longwood Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89134-5157
MTC-00020267
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
"welfare" for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen. Please put a stop to this travesty
of justice now.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
jerry obriant
903 e. 12 th .st.
SWEETWATER, TX 79556-2534
MTC-00020268
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
"welfare" for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kenneth E. K. Hodges
19875 Park Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070-6445
MTC-00020269
From: Thompson, Alan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
How DARE you sell out to Microsoft! The department of justice is
supposed to protect the public from companies that illegally
maintain and exploit a monopoly. Dump the weak proposed settlement
and do something worthwhile with my tax dollars; put some real force
into the sanctions against Microsoft. If the appeals court won't go
for a break-up, at least force Microsoft to open-source their OS
code and provide truly secure products. They have a
"gun" to their head and the DOJ has loaded it with
blanks!
Alan Thompson
MTC-00020270
From: Stephen Nicholson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I don't know if I as a UK citizen am allowed to comment on the
Microsoft Settlement but I shall give it a try and hope to be heard.
To be short and simple I say "no". The proposed
settlement does not go far enough in my opinion. Harsher penalties
should be sought.
Stephen Nicholson
Technician Manager
MTC-00020271
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:40am
Subject: The Suit against Microsoft
Please drop the suit against Microsoft and let them get on with
their business, which is serving its customers the best they can.
I've never understood why government can't stand to see any company
be successful. Of course, the business of government is to prevent
force and fraud, but Microsoft was not involved in "force or
fraud", apparently. The government attempt to level the
playing field inhibits good businesses from doing what they do best:
serve the customers. The market will do the right thing if
government will get out of the way and quit meddling in the affairs
of the market.
If force (the gun) or fraud (as in Enron) occurs, then let the
government bring Microsoft to justice and incarcerate the criminals
involved. I don't see Microsoft as a proper target for the DOJ and
you've been at this too long. Give it up.
Regards,
Robert D. Sharp
9006 Patrick Ave.
Arleta, CA 91331
MTC-00020272
From: Robert Dalton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:45am
Subject: MS proposal
To whom it may concern,
The settlement prosed in the case against Microsoft (MS) will
*not* resolve the problems that prompted the case. This case was not
about saving Sun Microsystems and Netscape from the abuses of MS.
These two companies have both in their own way tried to do what MS
has in abusing it's monopoly position in the market. Netscape was
well on its way to destroying all other web browsers when MS came
along and did the same to them, so I have ZERO sympathy for
Netscape. Suns efforts to control Java while trying to make it a
"standard" are contradictory at best.
The problem that needs to be addressed in the MS antitrust
settlement is "how do we make the market more
competitive?". Breaking up MS won't work because you'll have
2+ "baby Bills" out there pulling the same shenanigans.
The antitrust suit against IBM was dropped (for good reason),
because IBM had reformed it's practices enough to make the case
irrelevant. MS has proven time and again they have zero respect for
the "rule of law", and figure they can get away with
anything through delay tactics, fake "grassroots"
campaigns, PR, and huge campaign donations.
The current MS "abuse of monopoly" is no longer a
Windows problem, but is an OFFICE
[[Page 26863]]
problem. The Office Suite product line is the MS cash cow, and MS
used Windows to create its Office monopoly. MS has control of the
desktop OS market, and only time can erode their commanding market
share there.
The key to getting MS to behave is force them to make MS-Office
run on at minimum 3 other Operating Systems with the same exact
functionality as the Windows version for 10 years. Next they must
also be forced to stop giving discounts on Windows to OEMs that
"play ball" by not promoting non-MS products.
If MS wants to make a donation to the schools as part of any
settlement, then it should be "hardware only" for any
monetary value. If they also want to donate the software, then it
must be completely free and include unlimited usage licenses. This
will allow schools to decide if they want MS products for free or
Open Source products at the same price.
MTC-00020273
From: Thomas B. Cox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I completely oppose the Proposed Final Judgment tentatively
agreed on 06-Nov-2001 between DoJ and Microsoft.
The Proposed Final Judgment has a multitude of weak definitions,
leaves several holes where Microsoft's anti-competitive conduct is
not regulated, and provides insufficient protections to ISVs who
wish to use Microsoft APIs.
I demand that DoJ reject this Proposed Final Judgment and
rewrite it in much stronger terms. The comments at Slashdot are a
good starting point for this.
Thank you for your time.
Thomas B. Cox
"Saepe in errore sed numquam in dubito"
[email protected] http://www.geocities.com/tbcox23/
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it
with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
-H.L. Mencken
MTC-00020274
From: laurent.catinaud(a)worldonline.fr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I don't agree
Laurent Catinaud
MTC-00020275
From: HoustonAndBarb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft was found guilty.
There is nothing in the settlement that looks even remotely
punitive. How can this be justice?
Houston Brennan.
Portland, Oregon.
MTC-00020276
From: Kevin Macken
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs
AM extremely disappointed with the provisions of the Microsoft
settlement as disclosed in the press. I believe the 9 states who
have chosen to pursue Microsoft on their own have a better
settlement in mind for the public. Please adopt their stance on this
issue.
Personally, I believe the break up of "Office" from
the "OS" is the only way to assure competition.
Otherwise Microsoft will continue to "embrace and
extend" other standards so that we will never have a choose
except Microsoft's products.
Please re-introduce competition to the computer market place by
supporting the 9 states or breaking up Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Kevin Macken
Litchfield Park, Arizona
MTC-00020277
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
"welfare" for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Grace Alvarez
P.O. Box 1914
Twain Harte, CA 95383-1914
MTC-00020278
From: Silver, Russell P. JR ( COMMO )
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/24/02 2:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whomever, Your recently sell-out to Microsoft in the form of
your so called settlement DOES NOT correct nor punish Microsoft. It
is worded in such a way to allow MS to continue to behave as it has
and continue to reap the benefits. Your settlement caves on all the
important areas. Ms will continue to use its influence to bundle
more and more into the OS until third party applications aren't
needed. Impose REAL regulations on MS. Require them to follow the
law-AND don't let them benefit from their past misconduct. In
the 90's they used IE to destroy Netscape for control of the Web,
they rewrote Java so it would only work on their products. As it
stands now, you might as well sit as MS's table because your
"settlement" is nothing more than MS's wishlist.
Russell Silver
MTC-00020279
From: Alex Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear sirs:
I'd like to take his opportunity to comment one of the
inadequacies I see in the Proposed Settlement of the Microsoft Case.
Specifically, the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) appears to attempt
erode the Applications Barrier to Entry in two ways:
1. By forbidding retaliation against OEMs, ISVs, and IHVs who
support or develop alternatives to Windows.
2. By taking various measures to ensure that Windows allows the
use of non-Microsoft middleware. It omits, however, perhaps the most
effective method available to eliminate the Applications Barrier to
Entry: making sure that Microsoft raises no artificial barriers to
non-Microsoft operating systems which implement the APIs needed to
run application programs written for Windows. In fact, Paragraph 52
of the Findings of Fact considers just this possibility. As the
owner of an information systems consulting business, I find myself
no alternative but to recommend Microsoft operating systems to my
clients who must use software written to the Microsoft APIs.
Requiring Microsoft to publish these APIs would make it possible for
developers of other operating systems to allow the running of these
applications. This would provide valid and healthy competition as an
alternative to the current Microsoft monopoly.
This letter highlights just one of the many problems I see
within the PFJ. I hope that the U.S. Department of Justice will take
proactive measures to correct the inadequacies as highlighted by
this and other correspondence received during this public comment
period.
Thank you-
Alexander M. Johnson, P.E.
Arete Systems
242 De Laveaga Park Drive
Santa Cruz, CA 95065
phone: 831.420.0772
fax: 831.420.0838
e-mail: [email protected]
www.aretesystems.com
MTC-00020280
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
"welfare" for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the
[[Page 26864]]
future, not only in terms of computer technology, but all sorts of
innovations in the most dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Betty Zeitler
1680 133rd Ave. NW
Minneapolis, MN 55448-7027
MTC-00020281
From: Peter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi,
I've been checking out the case details (a bit) and think that
the current Proposed Final Judgment needs to be strengthened. A few
of the definition could be strengthened. An example is Section III.
A. 2. which should also incorporate computers with a non-Microsoft
OS. [http://www.kegel.com/remedy/]
This current settlement does not seem to punish Microsoft as
noted by Steve Jobs [http://www.wired.com/news/antitrust/
0,1551,48660,00.html]. The poor practices of this company should
stop.
Peter
MTC-00020282
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
"welfare" for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary Ann Heffernan
11171 Oakwood Dr.
Loma Linda, CA 92354-4807
MTC-00020283
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
"welfare" for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Thiel and Lola Gomm
Gen Dly
Smoot, WY 83126
MTC-00020284
From: J(038)B Seybold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
While the proposed settlement appears to meet the defined goals,
I am very concerned that the definition of "Microsoft
Middleware Product" in the "REVISED PROPOSED FINAL
JUDGMENT" is far too narrow and restrictive. Specifically, in
"Section IV, Definitions", paragraph K.2.b.i, the
definition states ". . .is, or in the year preceding
the commercial release of any new Windows Operating System Product
was, distributed separately by Microsoft (or by an entity acquired
by Microsoft) from a Windows Operating System
Product. . ."
This definition appears to exclude functionality which was based
directly upon or substantially identical in function to the a
previous commercial product, but where said functionality was
modified by Microsoft. This is a major exclusion, because it is very
rare in commercial software for unchanged software to published for
two consecutive years. It is common practice for Microsoft to modify
software, either by reducing functionality, or by adding
functionality, when incorporating the functionality of previously
commercial software. Under the provisions of the proposed
definition, similar but distinctly different functionality would
exclude such modified software from the Microsoft Middleware Product
definition. Microsoft could therefore make small or even trivial
changes in software that would otherwise be clearly defined as
Microsoft Middle Product, and thereby claim that it was exempt from
the provisions of this judgment.
Further, the definition of "Microsoft Middleware
Product" in the "REVISED PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT"
carefully excludes new software functionality developed by Microsoft
and included as Microsoft Middleware or as part of the Windows
operating system, with the intent of competing directly with
commercially available software to reduce competition. The pattern
shown in the development and release of Internet Explorer,
Microsoft's Java Virtual Machine, Windows Media Player, Windows
Messenger, and Outlook Express is now being repeated in many other
areas. For example, the capabilities of Microsoft Backup has been
extended to include the file backup functionality provided by
NovaStor Corporation's NovaDisk, or Veritas Corporation's Backup
Exec. Since NovaStor and Veritas have not been acquired by
Microsoft, Microsoft Backup does not meet the definition of a
Microsoft Middleware Product. Therefore, I suggest that the Proposed
Final Judgment does not provide the necessary restrictions to
preclude continued anticompetitive conduct by Microsoft to
unlawfully protect and maintain its operating system monopoly in
violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
I suggest that Specifically, in "Section IV,
Definitions", paragraph K.2.b.i, be modified to state
"i. is, or in the year preceding the commercial release of any
new Windows Operating System Product was, distributed separately by
from a Windows Operating System Product,"
Thank you for your consideration.
John B. Seybold
MTC-00020285
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To my belief the settlement reached by two parties is fair and
it should be finalized as it is written. Microsoft has made a great
contribution to the economy of the country and to the
communications. It should be praised.
Sincerely,
Ghassem Ladjevardi
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00020286
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
"welfare" for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert G. Kraatz
24321 Dry Canyon Cold Creek Road
Calabasas, CA 91302-3209
MTC-00020287
From: eva breyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:50am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
It is time to settle this case.
[[Page 26865]]
The settlement agreement is very harsh on Microsoft, the company
that has been THE major driver of the economic and technological
boom of the 90's. By creating a standard Operating System for all
personal computers Microsoft has been instrumental in making
computers affordable and easy to use. THE CLEAR WINNER HAS BEEN THE
CONSUMER.
Microsoft's jealous competitors started this lawsuit because
they could not compete with the greatest American company on a fair
business basis, even though their business practicies have been just
as aggressive. We consumers do not want to turn the clock back to a
multitude of incompatible Operating Systems that only work on
certain manufacturers computers and raise the cost of application
software. We want to be free to chose.
Eva Breyer
MTC-00020288
From: Jason Pascucci
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a long time Microsoft user and software developer, and not
having particularly benefited because of it, I have several problems
with the Microsoft Settlement as it currently exists. I believe that
the fundamental problems of Microsoft's worst business practices
remain unaddressed. Some of those are:
a) Consistent business practice of taking existing innovations,
stripping them down to component parts, and producing a solution
that is (usually barely) "good enough" without being
"better", where the real differentiator is that they
ship a "good enough" solution free. By bundling many
software systems that fundamentally do not belong to part of their
Operating System, they stifle competition.
The "operating system" of a machine is a defined
thing. It never had nor ever should include a web browser, or a
media player, or restrictive and incompatible authentication models.
b) refusing to implement interoperable, "open" and
compatible solutions (c.f. Sun's Java versus Microsoft's
implementation, IE's built-in incompatibility with existing
standards (thus impacting Netscape), etc)
c) In Microsoft's quest for market dominance, they are so busy
in pursuing market-blocking activities that they fundamentally do
not provide sufficient resources to make their own products
significantly better. Microsoft does not significantly update
products whose competitors do not impinge on their existing, near
dominant, market-share. They rely on the fact that the barrier to
entry is so high, and that existing problems could be addressed for
far less than the cost of full re-implementation, to dissuade
competition and avoid making important updates. Fundamentally, the
original proposals of splitting Microsoft may have been adequate to
level the playing field.
Another option not apparently considered, but the most useful to
address the problems, would be merely to force the unbundling of
-all- unrelated components: if a user could buy each
component separately, he could price and compare products, and pick
the one best suited to his needs. And, in that scenario, Microsoft
would be in the same boat as all other competitors: either make
better components, or risk losing business.
JRP
MTC-00020289
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
"welfare" for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Shirley Kardell
211 Bell Canyon Rd.
Bell Canyon, CA 91307-1111
MTC-00020290
From: Roberto Mello
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sir/Madam,
I am writing this to express my dissatisfaction with the
Proposed Final Judgement to the Microsoft Antitrust case.
One of my main concerns with the Proposed Final Judgement (PFG)
is that it supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, but
it defines "API" so narrowly that many important APIs
are not covered.
If these APIs and terms are tor clearly defined, it will leave
many loopholes with which Microsoft will have ample opportunity to
continue with its anti-competitive practices.
I urge the Department of Justice to take appropriate measures to
make sure such unjustice does not happen.
Best Regards,
Roberto Mello
Undergraduate Computer Science student, Utah State University
Computer Science,
Utah State University
http://www.sdl.usu.edu/
Space Dynamics Lab, Developer
MTC-00020291
From: Lynn Clark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 2:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to express my disappointment about the proposed
settlement in the Microsoft antitrust trial.
The proposed settlement will have little, if any, effect in
curbing Microsoft's illegal behavior. Having read both Judge
Jackson's "Findings of Fact" and "Final
Judgement" in the antitrust trial and the appellate court's
decision, and having read the proposed settlement, it is difficult
to imagine how Microsoft's attorney's were able to so successfully
roll the government negotiator, in light of the malicious behavior
of which Microsoft was found guilty. The proposed settlement has
holes big enough to fly a Microsoft 777 through.
Microsoft is an unrepentant monopolist. Microsoft's past actions
have hurt the marketplace and its present actions continue to do so,
even after having been found guilty of egregiously violating
antitrust laws. For example, after having been found guilty in the
antitrust trial, Microsoft has subverted the "open"
kerberos security standard in a way that can have only adverse
consequences for platform-independent computing, effectively
preventing non-Microsoft software from seamlessly interoperating
with Microsoft software in a networked computing environment. This
decreases consumer
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.