United States v. Microsoft Corporation; Public Comments; Notice (MTC-00024449 - MTC-00027804)

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

[Notices]

[Pages 27484-28121]

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

[FR Doc No: X02-80503]

MTC-00024449

From: Keith B. Bassett

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:11pm

Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Case

Hello,

I am writing to address the possible settlement of the US vs

Microsoft case. Simply put, the current remedy worries me. If we

subscribe to a strictly behavioral punishment for a company which

has been proven a monopoly, then how can we design it so that the

changing face of technology doesn't allow Microsoft to sidestep it?

Because of the volatile nature of the field of technology, and

because of Microsoft's proven habit of undermining or purchasing

competitors, how can any behavioral punishment forsee the direction

that the company will move? Microsoft has shown great ingenuity in

getting around this sort of punishment in the past, and the current

remedy doesn't appear to be properly drawn to prevent Microsoft from

doing so again.

I still subscribe to the idea that a structural remedy would be

the best course of action. A dissolution of the company into parts

that could compete with each other would seem to produce the

greatest economic good for the largest number of consumers and

companies. Microsoft would produce better products without the

stranglehold on the oem market that they currently hold. Oems would

have the option of going with several varieties or flavors of the

current Microsoft offerings, which would cause serious competition

and improvement in the OS offerings. Bugs would be fixed quickly,

and the basic solidity of the OS offerings would increase at a

similar rate, as the companies struggled for position. File formats

might still be a weapon against competitors, but without one clear

leader, the level of interoperability would be a serious selling

point. Currently the Office offerings import all documents

perfectly, but cannot export to other formats without major

problems, even ostensibly ``open'' formats. However, it

appears that the structural remedies have been discarded in favor of

action which will be perceived as less drastic. Perhaps some

appropriate remedies include the dissolution of the current OEM

preload aggrements, with a prohibition of future ones. The Microsoft

office suite data file formats could be placed into the public

domain, with future format changes coming under review from an

independent open standards body. The .NET formats, interconnects and

standards could be placed under the overview of an independent open

standards body, as could the Microsoft networking protocols.

A drastic, but effective solution would be the seizure and

relicensing of the core source code for the range of Microsoft's

OSes. If they were relicensed under an open source license they

would remain available regardless of the changes made to them. This,

while extreme, would allow for the use of the code by the entire

marketplace and increase competition in other areas, forcing

Microsoft to compete elsewhere. These solutions may seem extreme,

but they depend upon the fact that Microsoft has a proven monopoly

which was obtained by illegal means. If they did not have a monopoly

or if it was retained legally these rules would not apply.

If an effective long term remedy is not obtained, then Microsoft

will have been given implicit permission to continue their current

and former business practices. In fact it will be an endorsement of

them and will endanger what little remaining commercial competition

they have. I don't know what this will mean for other big companies

in the information business, but it certainly gives them a

frightening level of control of the American public's access to

those companies and to information in general.

Thanks for your time, I know that this was a simple and general

letter, but I wanted to let you know what the general public was

feeling.

Keith B. Bassett

MTC-00024450

From: James M. Moe

To: Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov

Date: 1/25/02 12:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I do not agree.

Microsoft is a monopoly as found in the original judgment. While

not a bad thing in itself, Microsoft has persistently abused its

position to the detriment of the computer and software industries.

Further it is contemptuous of the prevailing laws and openly

continues its abusive practices.

MTC-00024451

From: Dankovits, Kris

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

Date: 1/25/02 12:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I disagree with the Microsoft settlement. It is a foolish move,

designed to help only Microsoft.

Kris Dankovits

MTC-00024452

From: Ryan Lucier

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think Microsoft develops O.K products, but getting rid of

competition is not a good practice.

MTC-00024453

From: Don Ramier

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:16pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir or Madam:

I would like to have my comment entered into the Federal

Register as required by the provisions of the Tunney Act (Antitrust

Procedures and Penalties Act) with respect to the proposed

``settlement'' of the Microsoft Corporation anti-trust

case.

Since Microsoft has shown absolutely no remorse or change in

business attitudes following the 1995 anti-trust decision rendered

against it, and has been found to be in contempt of court regarding

subsequent violations, business activities, business strategies, and

programs, I hope and pray that the Federal Government will deny the

validity of this settlement on many grounds, including and not

limited to the one mentioned above.

This provisions of this settlement are unenforceable. The

penalties cannot be enforced, monitored, or even imposed upon the

Microsoft Corporation.

I never wanted to have a browser supplied by Microsoft

Corporation with their operating system forcibly imposed on my

property, my Personal Computer, called Internet Explorer. I use

Netscape, a competitor of Microsoft's. My computer fails to operate

properly due to malicious engineering by the operating system

(Windows) when I respond that I don't want to use Internet Explorer

as my default browser. How can I be sure that the I.E. code is to

blame? How can the provisions of this settlement be enforced?

Computer programming can be ``transparent to the user''

and can cause lingering damage, and even crippling effects on the

property of people like myself, if I don't answer the questions the

way the code interprets I should. How can situations like this be

monitored by the U.S. Government, or by anybody else, for that

matter? This is just one of many examples I could use to describe

the performance (or lack thereof) of my property, my Personal

Computer, when maimed by any number of versions of the Windows

operating system. I am a technical writer by trade, and it is my job

to document highly technical programming code of sophisticated

software applications. Over the last twenty years, I have been

employed by the International Business Machines Corporation (IBM),

the Federal Express Corporation (FedEx) and three smaller software

development corporations. I have been very well trained to know what

the code is supposed to do, and what the code is NOT supposed to do

(the actions and mistaken actions of programming code).

In these twenty years of computer related technical writing

experience, I have seen the emergence of the operating system named

DOS (short for Disk Operating System) that Microsoft created for

delivery on the IBM PC, the evolution of DOS to Windows, and, over

time, the gradual, yet perceivable, encroachment of the Windows

operating environment on my ability to perform my specified tasks

within the framework needed. Jumps from versions of operating

systems affected the performance of other applications that should

not have been affected and this caused much delay in the delivering

of my services to my employers in a timely manner.

How can the U.S. Government hope to understand, much less

enforce, the terms of this proposed settlement on the intricacies of

the Windows operating environment and the thousands upon thousands

of lines of code? It is inconceivable to me that the U.S.

Government, in all it's might and glory, cannot see that this

settlement is just a cop out and is not justice, but an appeasement

to the monolithic Microsoft Corporation.

For these and other reasons, I hereby voice my concern over the

terms of the proposed settlement and ask that remedial steps be

taken to truly and justly dismantle the monopolistic Microsoft

Corporation by force of law.

Sincerely,

Don A. Ramier, III

Documentation Specialist

Geobot, Inc.

Memphis, Tennessee

[[Page 27485]]

MTC-00024454

From: Jonathan Kamens

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:17pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

I have been developing computer software for Windows, Linux and

other operating systems for over fifteen years.

I have reviewed the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) in United

States v. Microsoft. In my opinion, the remedies outlined in that

judgment are inconsistent with the Finding of Facts in the case and

will not achieve the required goals of eliminating Microsoft's

anticompetitive conduct and making it possible for other software

vendors to compete with Microsoft on an even playing field in the

future.

To mention just one of the many problems with the PFJ, it

stipulates that Microsoft must document Windows API's so that

competitors can write software which uses those API's to

interoperate with Windows, but (a) the definition of what

constitutes ``API's'' and therefore must be documented is

just plain wrong, (b) there are no requirements on when API's must

be documented, and hence Microsoft may be so slow in documenting

them as to make it impossible for other software vendors to take

advantage of the documentation in time to compete effectively.

Furthermore, the terms of the PFJ and of Microsoft's own end-user

license agreements would seem to imply that Microsoft can continue

to prohibit other software vendors from implementing and/or using

emulations of Windows API's on non-Windows operating systems. For

example, even under the PFJ the legality of the ``WINE''

Windows emulator for linux would still be questionable, despite the

fact that ``WINE'' is clearly one of the largest and most

effective tools for leveling the playing field between Windows and

Linux.

I sincerely hope that the Court rejects the Proposed Final

Judgment and instructs the Justice Department to come up with a new

one which addresses the many problems which I'm sure have been

brought to your attention.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Kamens

Curl Corporation

MTC-00024455

From: Ernie DeVries

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:19pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am not a lawyer. I cannot speak to the legal points of the

proposed settlement of DOJ's anti-trust action against Microsoft.

Although I am a computer professional, in many ways I am just a

consumer who is directly affected by the actions of Microsoft

because I use personal computers. I can speak to the impact of a

settlement on consumers.

The largest personal impact of Microsoft's conduct has been the

lack of choice by consumers. Microsoft has a long history of actions

such as pre-announcements, feature add-ons and exclusive agreements

which have been done not to improve the use of MS products, but

simply as preemptive strikes to keep competitors from continued

development on products. For me, this kind of behavior is the core

issue in MS using it's existing monopoly to enter new markets.

Although it was not specifically addressed in the trial, events

at Gateway computer illustrate this problem. There was a time when

Gateway included ``Office'' software with each new

computer at no additional charge. Gateway customers were given the

choice between Microsoft Office and WordPerfect Office, with no push

or coercion toward either product. This practice did not last long,

but was replaced by Gateway offering no choice--only MS Office.

Anyone who believes that Gateway took this action on its own,

without behind-the-scenes ``encouragement'' from MS, is a

fool.

The connection to this case is that even if MS never actually

leaned on Gateway to exclude competing products, MS was able to

create an environment wherein vendors had to live with the constant

threat that they would be cut off by MS or have prices increased by

MS so that the manufacturer could not compete. This environment lead

directly to reduced choice for consumers with resulting higher

prices and lower productivity because the ``better

mousetrap'' never had a chance in the marketplace.

Certainly there were errors in judgment by the original trial

judge regarding the sharing of his thoughts about the trial, but as

I watched the trial unfold I was repeatedly struck with the thought

that Judge Jackson seemed to be the only one involved in the case

who was making any sense at all. If the actual judgment of Judge

Jackson cannot be implemented, then certainly his intent needs to be

preserved.

To accomplish this, I see the following as being critical pieces

of the conclusion of this case:

(1) Consumer choice will only be restored when MS is forced to

open its files to share information on API calls and file formats so

that all competitors have the same advantage as the internal

developers at Microsoft. This is not sharing source code, but

interfaces.

(2) Exclusive contracts must be prohibited between MS and its

OEM customers as well as with VARs (Value Added Resellers).

(3) MS must be prohibited from giving away products. I know this

is very difficult to define, but we must never again have a

situation like Internet Explorer which was created and given away

for the exclusive purpose of undercutting a competitor that did not

have the same financial resources as MS. Consumers are not benefited

by ``free'' products when the result is the lack of real

alternatives in the marketplace.

(4) Financial penalties. The financial penalties from

Microsoft's past behavior must be so severe that MS will never again

consider repeating its behavior.

The bottom line is that we need a sentence that restores choice

and innovation to the marketplace. MS must become one player among

equals instead of being the only player that counts.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Ernie DeVries

Flagstaff, AZ

MTC-00024456

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:20pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Department of Justice:

Please accept the settlement with Microsoft.

Bringing this matter to a conclusion will help the economy and

boost confidence in the stock market.

Thank you,

Kevin Greenhaw

MTC-00024457

From: Tony H

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:21pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

All I can say its a BIG JOKE.

Users Lose

Microsoft Wins

Thank You

Tony Hromadka

MTC-00024458

From: Paul Dupuy, Jr.

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:21pm

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,

Paul Dupuy

Software Engineer

Vancouver, WA

MTC-00024459

From: Lori Dupuy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:22pm

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 27486]]

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,

Lori Dupuy

Mother

Vancouver, WA

MTC-00024461

From: Scott Tietjen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:22pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Commentary due to the Tunney Act requirements:

I am a Consultant Computer Programmer/Analyst and Data Security

Analyst. I have reviewed the proposed settlement with Microsoft, and

have read many commentaries on it, and I am shocked that our

government and nine states have given in to Microsoft in such an

outrageous way. There is no possible chance that Microsoft will

change its behavior in any noticeable way with the application of

this settlement--they will in fact be left alone to do what

they want, to whomever they want, any time they want, with no

controls whatsoever, despite this ``review committee''

will do or say. This settlement does nothing to stem Microsoft's

anti-competitive behavior--in fact, it provides so many large

loopholes that you can drive a truck through them (and, Microsoft

will drive many trucks through those loopholes). I will not go into

any significant detail--my other collegues that have provided

commentary that more than do justice to the topic.

In closing, I support the other nine states and their attorneys-

general who disagree with the proposed settlement. Their proposals

come a lot closer to actually restoring almost reasonable

competition to the marketplace, although they are not perfect

requirements either. I am of the camp that believes that Microsoft

properly needs to be broken up into several smaller companies, that

the industry and economy will not be harmed by such a breakup (just

like AT&T, the industry will thrive after such a breakup), and

that anyone that claims that harm will result from such a breakup is

merely parroting Microsoft spin doctors.

--Scott Tietjen, West Haven, Connecticut

MTC-00024462

From: Christopher Fitch

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:23pm

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 would like to comment on the proposed

Microsoft Settlement. In the Antitrust trial, a number of findings

were made. Further, upon appeal a number of facts were affirmed

including that Microsoft has a monopoly on Intel-compatible PC

operating systems, and that the company's market position is

protected by a substantial barrier to entry. ``Furthermore, the

Court of Appeals affirmed that Microsoft is liable under Sherman Act

? 2 for illegally maintaining its monopoly by imposing licensing

restrictions on OEMs, IAPs (Internet Access Providers), ISVs

(Independent Software Vendors), and Apple Computer, by requiring

ISVs to switch to Microsoft's JVM (Java Virtual Machine), by

deceiving Java developers, and by forcing Intel to drop support for

cross-platform Java tools.'' (from Dan Kegel: http://

www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html )

Since Microsoft illegally maintained its monopoly, Microsoft

enjoys a strengthened Barrier of Entry and little or no competition

in the Intel-compatible operating system market. As such, the Final

Judgement must remedy the situation by significantly reducing the

Application Barrier of Entry and by greatly increasing competition

in the market. The proposed settlement does not remedy either

situation, and it actually strengthens their current monopoly and

allows for new monopolies to be created. There are a number of areas

that are flawed in the Proposed Settlement. A list of them is

located here: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html

Some other problems:

* There is no provision for preventing an extension of

Microsoft's monopoly into other areas. Any Microsoft products must

be provided as additional-cost options with a new computer which

allows for a user to not be forced into buying them if they do not

wish to.

* There is no provision for opening Microsoft's current and

future file formats so that any competitors'' applications can

properly read/write/modify documents created using Microsoft

applications.

* There is no provision for requiring Microsoft to publish, in

entirety, the specifications for any networking protocols used in

Microsoft's products.

One other critical flaw is the lack of any enforcement in the

settlement and the lack of any serious punishment if Microsoft

violates the terms of the settlement. In the Proposed Settlement,

only investigative issues are covered. There are no mechanisms for

punishing Microsoft if they violate any terms. This is akin to a

convicted criminal (which Microsoft is) being told at a sentencing

hearing that his only punishment is to agree to not commit the crime

again, and if the criminal does commit the same crime, he will just

be ``watched'' some more. Without any mechanism for

punishment, Microsoft can easily violate the settlement terms with

no fear of costs or consequences. The current Antitrust proceedings

resulted from Microsoft's violation of a Consent Decree from 1995,

and indicate a willingness by Microsoft to break the law to maintain

their market share.

For years, it has been stated that computing is critical to the

United States'' economic future, and as such, to the entire

world. If we allow Microsoft to continue to impede competition and

destroy innovation by accepting the Proposed Settlement, the

country's future and perhaps the whole world's future are in danger

of suffering significant damage from which it may take years to

recover. Competition is vital to any important market and provides

benefits to customers and to the economy. A great example of

competition's benefits is in the area of Intel-compatible processors

or CPUs. Intel and AMD are the two main competitors in this area,

and their competition has had a large positive effect. Their

products are better, cheaper, and easily available.

Finally, Microsoft has eliminated customers'' choices by

restricting changes to applications bundled with their operating

system and by forcing computer manufacturers to install their

operating system through the use of restrictive contracts. One of

the cornerstones of our country is freedom of choice. Microsoft has

violated that right and must be prevented from violating freedom of

choice any further.

In summary, Microsoft has been found guilty of violating the

law. These violations and their damage to the market must be

remedied, and future damage must be prevented. The Proposed

Settlement does neither and MUST be rejected since it does not serve

the public interest.

Thanks for your time,

Christopher Fitch

Senior Software Engineer

Memphis, TN

MTC-00024463

From: Marc Grubb

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:24pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly:

I would like to call to your attention what I feel are glaring

omissions in the PFJ, which allow Microsoft to continue to dominate

and monopolize in almost every market, allow exclusionary practices

to continue, and fail to adequately punish Microsoft for its anti-

competitive behavior. As a Macintosh user, I feel the effects

Microsoft's strangle hold on the consumer software market every day.

By using the Macintosh Operating System, I can avoid using Windows,

though it is a constant struggle to avoid having to use Microsoft's

Explorer for Web Browsing or Word and

[[Page 27487]]

Excel for Word Processing and Spreadsheets, which are just a few

examples. Through their domination, they have virtually eliminated

competition for consumer and small business software applications

even within the Mac OS.

The PFJ is so vague that it only STRENGTHENS Microsoft's

barriers to entry and WEAKENS competition. This hurts consumers and

limits innovation and is contrary to the free market principles of

our nation's economy. Please strengthen the PFJ to satisfy the Court

of Appeal's mandate ruling ``a remedies decree in an antitrust

case must seek to ``unfetter a market from anticompetitive

conduct'', to ``terminate the illegal monopoly, deny to

the defendant the fruits of its statutory violation, and ensure that

there remain no practices likely to result in monopolization in the

future'' (section V.D., p. 99).

The PFJ, in its current form, does none of these things, thereby

violating the public trust.

Thank you for your consideration.

Marc Grubb

Roslindale, MA

MTC-00024464

From: Mark Stevenson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:25pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

The proposed settlement is a poor one because the

``remedies'' imposed are so unrestrictive and narrowly-

defined as to let Microsoft continue with anitcompetitive actions

with almost no change in corporate behavior. There is no sting, and

there is no remedy in the proposed settlement.

Mark Stevenson

Fishers, IN

Personal computer consumer/enthusiast

MTC-00024465

From: William Buchanan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:25pm

Subject: Comment on Microsoft-DOJ settlement

I am outraged at the proposed ``settlement'' of this

conflict. It makes as much sense to me as the first court conclusion

in the OJ Simpson case. Gates has simply conned his way out of being

found clearly guilty by the very expensive but well executed

investigation of Microsoft's actions by the Clinton DOJ.

Gates'' entire career is based on lying, cheating, stealing and

bullying his way around in the consumer community. He has no

scruples, other than continually doing anything he can to get the

public's money in exchange for their purchases of Microsoft's so-

called ``innovative'' products. These sub par products

only appear to be innovative because he has used his wealth and

maligned cunning to squash any legitimate competitors. Jackson's

characterization of him as a ``little Napoleon'' is right

on. And now for the corrupt tie between G.W. Bush and W. Gates

(following White House meetings between the two) to surface as a

``just settlement'' thrown quickly before a war-distracted

US public and its Congress, is really rubbing salt into a big wound.

Hooray for the valor of the states who are holding out and

continuing to gun for a real ``just settlement'', in this

case. The only reason the other states that originally were involved

had to drop out is that the Gates machine is so well endowed,

financially and legally, it is able to intimidate even a relatively

large collective of public/legal representatives in its obsessive

path of destruction. I'm glad to be a citizen of California, and

able to watch my attorney general, Bill Locklyer, lead the charge

against prematurely settling with Microsoft.

I would hope that the Federal DOJ could follow the same path in

this case, but think that the eagerness of the current

administration to satisfy Gates'' dreams of walking away

unscathed from this situation are so far handing him his wishes,

just as though it was a ``pardon''. If there is still such

a value as ``justice'' in our US, then let it reign

supreme. Require Microsoft to be held accountable for what it has

already been found guilty of, and make it pay the full and

responsible cost of having deliberately committed its heinous

actions. And see to it that the Bush administration be held just as

responsible and accountable for exercising its Constitutional

requirement to uphold justice in this case. Anything less only

brings to light that the Bush administration and Microsoft are

colluding to dupe the taxpayer into believing that both are worthy

of honor, a conclusion that is just not acceptable and well should

not be.

CC:abraham fred,Jacobsen Dianne,Lips Rolf,Marasco Joe

MTC-00024466

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:22pm

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,

Kim Pickens

1901 W Imhoff Rd

Norman, OK 73072

MTC-00024467

From: Chris Mayhall

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:26pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement--AOL Private Suit

The last thing our country and economy needs right now is yet

another frivolous lawsuit that will surely do further damage to

nearly everyone's retirement portfolio (particularly in light of

recent events with Enron Corporation). Please dismiss the recent

lawsuit file by AOL Time Warner against Microsoft Corporation, and

ask that AOL Time Warner compete with technology instead of

litigation.

Three important points should be noted regarding AOL Time

Warner:

1. AOL purchased Netscape for $10 billion dollars in the midst

of the DoJ trial, even after hearing concrete evidence that IE's

success in the market was based on merit, not market share.

2. Microsoft has tried to with AOL in a variety of areas,

including improvement of instant messaging interoperability and

getting fair and open access to AOL's dominant cable assets.

3. AOL has repeatedly rebuffed Microsoft's efforts, to the

detriment of consumers and the technology industry, and has turned

to politics and litigation instead.

As a small-business entrepreneur, I view the relationship

between Microsoft's Internet Browser (IE) and AOL's browser

(Netscape Navigator) as a straight-forward, very tough, competition

between two companies operating in a free-market arena. Nothing

more.

AOL Time Warner needs to step up to the plate, quit whining (or

rather, attempting to derail Microsoft and as a side-effect derail

our economy via litigation), and come out with a superior browser

and method for interacting with the internet. AOL Time Warner

certainly has the financial assets to compete, and no doubt has

technology and personnel to compete, AND has massive leverage in the

form of its cable rights and media content (via Time Warner assets).

Do I file a lawsuit when my competition across town comes up

with a better service? Hell no, I work longer hours, invest in newer

technology, and get my &%$ in gear or else I'm out of a job and

the vision that is my company goes down the tubes.

Sincerely,

Chris Mayhall

Applied Digital Photography, LLC

MTC-00024468

From: Michele Midofer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:26pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

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

Microsoft settlement. The conclusions reached in the Revised

Proposed Final Judgment is NOT in the public interest.

It encourages Microsoft's monopolitic ways to continue, and this

is wrong.

Sincerely,

Michele Midofer

MTC-00024469

From: Ev Plant

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:26pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

July 22, 2001

Attorney General John Ashcroft

US Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530

[[Page 27488]]

Dear Mr. Ashcroft,

It is time to stop fiddling with the Microsoft antitrust

lawsuit, while the American technology industry burns. I strongly

support your leadership in directing your Department of Justice to

settle this embarrassment. After three years of lawyering and three

months of negotiations, I am glad that the parties, including my

home state of Illinois, have agreed to what agreed to what may be

the least flawed settlement possible.

Microsoft agreed to give up a great deal in the settlement. Were

I in charge of Microsoft, I fantasize that I would have led out to

maintain the principles of American free enterprise. However, I

respect what Microsoft went through, and Microsoft's choice. Under

the settlement, Microsoft sets a precedent as the first company to

disclose to its competitors the code for its internal interfaces of

an operating system, its popular Windows programs. Further,

Microsoft will release its server interoperability protocols, and on

a non-discriminatory basis license its copyrights and patents to

other companies who might otherwise infringe. Microsoft will modify

Windows XP and later to make it easy for others, including

competitors, to add their own programs or remove Microsoft's

programs integral to Windows. A three-person oversight committee

will monitor compliance and field complaints from any party. I think

at all of this is too much, but support Microsoft's decision to

accept the settlement.

America has always been at the forefront of computer software

development. Let's maintain America's leadership position. Your

leadership was essential to reaching the settlement. Now your

leadership can help convince the Federal Judge to accept the

settlement. I appreciate your strong leadership.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Everett Plant

20 Grand Circle

Danville, IL 61832

CC:[email protected]@inetgw

MTC-00024470

From: Al Yee

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:27pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Ever school child in America has been taught about fairness and

justice and yet the American political system continues allow

Microsoft to crush its rival. The legal system has proven Microsoft

guilty so enforce the law and for once prove that the justice system

is above politics.

MTC-00024471

From: Josh

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:30pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I just want to say that I disagree with the proposed settlement.

I don't think I need to go into great detail as to why I disagree

with it, I'm sure many others have already. My feeling is basically

this: This settlement is equivalent to sentencing a serial killer to

100 hours of community service instead of the life sentence (or

worse) that they deserve.

Joshua Fluty

Independent Programmer

Greenville, SC

MTC-00024472

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:26pm

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,

Donald Grempler

611 West drive

Glen Burnie, MD 21061-2034

MTC-00024473

From: Shilpa Tilwalli

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

Date: 1/25/02 12:33pm

To Whom It May Concern:

In accordance with the Tunney Act I am submitting my opinions on

the proposed government settlement with Microsoft in regards to the

pending anti-trust case.

I am firmly opposed to the current proposed settlement term in

the Microsoft case. The terms do no fully redress the actions

committed by Microsoft in the past, nor their ability to commit

similar or anti-competitive actions in the future.

Many of the provisions in the current settlement will not

effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly

position in the operating system market. In view of Microsoft

history of anti-comptetitive practices correcting this is vitally

important.

A few issues that have been brought to my attention are:

1) The settlement does not 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 settlement fails to prohibit this, and

even contributes to this part of the Applications Barrier to Entry.

2) The settlement Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License

Terms currently used by Microsoft. Microsoft currently uses

restrictive licensing terms to keep Open Source applications from

running on Windows.

3) The settlement 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.

4) The settlement Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices

Towards OEMs. The current settlement allows Microsoft to retaliate

against any OEM that ships Personal Computers containing a competing

Operating System but no Microsoft operating system.

Please refer to http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html for

other issues that must be addressed for the settlement to be fair

and equitable to all interested parties.

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. I implore you to look into these and the other

issues before before pursuing closure on this matter.

Thank you.

Shilpa Tilwalli

MTC-00024474

From: dave robinson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:31pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

I believe that the proposed settlement is a bad idea. It will

not prevent Microsoft from breaking antitrust laws in the future, or

punish them for the illegal damage they have already done to

companies in my area.

Thankyou very much for your consideration,

David Robinson

MTC-00024475

From: David Sullivan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:31pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The proposed settlement is inadequate as it stands. There are a

number of glaring flaws--for instance, the PFJ prohibits

certain behaviors by Microsoft towards OEMs but allows Microsoft to

retaliate against any OEM that ships Personal Computers containing a

competing Operating System but no Microsoft operating system. But

this means that the proposed remedy is little remedy at all for it

allows Microsoft to continue to dominate the Intel based OEM market

with abandon.

Please reconsider the proposed settlement.

David Sullivan

Associate Professor, MSCD

MTC-00024476

From: Christal Phillips

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:32pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

the proposed settlement is bad idea !!!!

MTC-00024477

From: Caroline Lambert

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:33pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am sending this email because I am concerned that the Proposed

Final Judgement does not go anywhere near far enough to stop

Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. There are too many loopholes

which others have

[[Page 27489]]

adequately described. Microsoft's only concern at the end of the day

is how many dollars they can suck out of their customers. If the

remedies are not made more severe, there will be no limit to the

damage they will cause to consumers and the high tech industry in

the future.

Caroline Lambert

IT Infrastructure Manager

Agilent Labs

MTC-00024478

From: Mike Zyphur

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:33pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

My name is:

Mike Zyphur

New Orleans, LA 70118

I am a Ph.D. student in Industrial and Organizational Psychology

at Tulane University, a US citizen, and I do not agree with the

proposed ruling. This settlement is a bad idea. If this settlement

is the outcome of what was a very telling antitrust trial and fact-

finding process by the DOJ then I am going to lose even more faith

in the ability of the DOJ to be an island in a sea of corporate-

sponsored governmental policy-making than has already been erroded

by past DOJ actions. If the currently proposed ruling is allowed to

stand, Microsoft will continue its subtle and publicly covert

operation of stifling competition and innovation, and (for those who

know a fair amount about technology and programming) blatantly

produce some of the worst products on the market with virtually no

competition that is adequately Windows compatable. Please, please,

please, reconsider your proposed decision and be true to the name of

your organization. The name that is, in this country, supposed to

mean something: The Department of Justice. For how can we, as a

nation, attempt to bring and preach justice throughout the world (as

we are currently attempting to do) if we cannot even remain unbiased

and just in our homeland?

Thank you for your time,

Mike Zyphur

The immature man desires to die for a cause. The mature man

desires to live for a cause, humbly.

J.D. Salinger

MTC-00024479

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:30pm

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,

Betty Norman

326 N. Evans

Pierre, SD 57501

MTC-00024480

From: Anne Dirkse

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:34pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would like to express my sincere dismay at the injustice of

the proposed settlement terms of DOJ vs. Microsoft. Such a

settlement does nothing to remedy the stifiling impact that

Microsoft has had on the industry. Quite the opposite, in fact It

opens up a new audience for Microsoft in a market that they would

very much like to permeate. Tecnology can and will do great things

for this country, but the essence of its sucess should be the same

essence that made this country great: freedom. By allowing Microsoft

to continue their non-competetive practices you all but ensure that

they will not only have increasing control over the operating system

market but also that they will continue their attempts to obfuscate

and disable other viable technologies, protocols and revolutionary

ideas.

You must act now to make sure the Internet, and communications

standards remain open to everyone. The following are critical to any

agreement terms:

1. Any application or web service distributed by Microsoft which

communicates over a network must first have its protocol approved

and published by a fair committee. (The idea is not to hinder

Microsoft's ability to create their own protocols, only to insure

that other applications will compete on their relative merits.)

2. The committee will also provide a protocol compatibility

suite (PCS) for the protocol.

3. No Microsoft product, patch, or web service may be

distributed without first passing the protocol compatibility suite

(PCS).

4. The latest Java Runtime Environment must be installed and

configured on all future Microsoft products for the next ten

years--including Java WebStart.

Sincerely,

Anne L. Dirkse

[email protected]

MTC-00024481

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:32pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The Settlement does not go nearly far enough in punishing

Microsoft for it's business practices. The Justice Dept, for

political reasons only, completly caved on the settlement.

Bryce Barrie

MTC-00024482

From: Helen Traaen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:38pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Please settle with Microsoft and quit spending tax payers money

on this long drawn out process, thank,,,,,

Helen Traaen

MTC-00024483

From: (q)Charles Hethcoat(q) (060)Charles Hethcoat

To:RFC-822=verify@*fxsp0;-

[email protected]@i...

Date: 1/25/02 12:36pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Name: Charles L. Hethcoat III

City: Houston

State: Texas

Title: Concerned citizen; Senior Engineer/Stress Analysis

Organization: Currently unemployed

To Whom It May Concern:

I have signed Dan Kegel's Open Letter to the DOJ because I fully

agree with it. Microsoft is being rewarded, not punished. Now, as a

part of this goofy ``settlement,'' the Pied Piper of

Redmond is geing given the next generation of school children to do

with as he wishes.

I say it's spinach and I say to Hell with it.

Cheers.

Charles Hethcoat

MTC-00024484

From: Matthew Jones

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:37pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe the current Microsoft settlement is not a good idea.

Please review the settlement and make sure it meets requirements and

standards of existing laws and regulations. When a corporation such

as microsoft defies federal anti-trust laws and calls it aggressive

business practices, something must be done about it. now is the time

to hold microsoft accountable for their actions and see that the

company does not continue in its illegal courses of action.

Thank you for your time

Matt Jones

MTC-00024485

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:12pm

Subject: Microsoft is a monopoly.

Microsoft has been found guilty of monopolistic practices, but

my government is set to reward its behavior.

The DOJ/Microsoft settlement is a disproportionately weak

response to the harmful, predatory practices of that business

entity. Most of the time I believe it is not in our best interests

for the government to micromanage free market activities. But in

this case, the actions of Microsoft have proven to be harmful to the

marketplace community, and by extension the larger economy.

If my government fails to protect the interests of its citizens

on such a hugely influential matter, that failure will corrode the

trust its citizens place in it. Furthermore,

[[Page 27490]]

letting the monopolist off so lightly essentially codifies into law

its monopolistic practices, and paves the way for further and more

egregious activities.

It is my view that a structural response, such as breaking the

company into operating system and application entities is not an

unfair nor an uncalled for response. I believe Microsoft has proven

in the past it is well capable of circumventing the rules other

business entities follow in its predatory campaign to stamp out

competition. Thus, I believe more conservative behavioral remedies

will, in the end, prove no barrier to further illegal and egregious

behaviors on the part of this entity.

Dennis Daupert

MTC-00024486

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:35pm

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,

F N Ingram

POB 12446

Odessa, TX 79768

MTC-00024487

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:36pm

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,

Herbert Rowland

7565 Keating Dr.

Indianapolis, IN 46260-3300

MTC-00024488

From: Christopher Plummer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:33pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Greetings,

I would like to submit the following as a Tunney Act comment

regarding my opposition to the proposed final judgement against

Microsoft:

As an information technologies professional for twenty years I

have observed the rise of Microsoft and noted with concern many of

its anti-competitive and monopolistic practices, only some of which

have been addressed by the DOJ case.

In general I am convinced that the remedy proposed will not

prevent Microsoft from unfairly maintaining its monopoly, not stop

it from thwarting competition and innovation in the computer and

every other industry it touches, and will not in the end prevent

Microsoft from harming consumers by hindering their choices in the

marketplace. The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow

Definitions and Provisions, Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive

License Terms currently used by Microsoft, Fails to Prohibit

Intentional Incompatibilities Historically Used by Microsoft, Fails

to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs, and as currently

written appears to lack an effective enforcement mechanism.

Please go back to the drawing board and come up with a remedy

that will actually protect and benefit consumers!

Thank you,

Christopher Plummer

Lotus Notes Administrator

Independent Contractor

Flemington, NJ USA

MTC-00024489

From:

[email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:36pm

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,

Bill Steinhour

220 Malibu Street

Castle Rock, CO 80104

MTC-00024490

From: Tazanator

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:40pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

sir;

I believe that the original proposal of splitting up microsoft

into several smaller independant companies is truely what is needed

in the intrest of fair play. The court records show they have run a

monopoly and violated anti-trust laws and have continued to bully

the computer market even during the trial. To belive they won't

continue to do the practices that made them the largest in the

business is a travisty to justice. In fact to belive they will

change and be open to compition is to belive that the windows XP

isn't them tring to fix the lemons in Windows 95. If they built cars

you know they would have been pushed out of business by now for

inferior support and a product that is very unstable. They have kept

the markets closed thru their legal department and arm wrangling to

the point that there has never been a chance for the american people

to stand up and voice what we belive is a better product let alone a

company to try to make a better product available to the people.

Please in the interest of the american idea of free competiton

bust the microsoft monopoly into several smaller corporations. It

would give the computers back to the people that created them

allowing the programs to improve instead of repair what microsoft

has crippled. --

MTC-00024491

From: Sam Mills

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:40pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Do not settle with microsoft. People who abuse the system must

be held accountable.

Sam Mills

MTC-00024492

From: Cesar Rebellon

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:41pm

Subject: comments

Just a quick comment on Microsoft-- My feeling, for

whatever it may be worth, is that Microsoft, intentionally or not,

has so much market share that they inhibit the very competition that

our country prides itself in promoting. Just my two cents worth...

Cesar J. Rebellon, M.A.

Applied Research Services

MTC-00024493

From: IVAN BOTVIN

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:41pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Gentlemen, I understand that you are now in the process of

reviewing the governments settlement with Microsoft. It is my

opinion that the settlement is fair and should not be touched.

Microsoft is a very important player in the growth of the computer

industry. It has been the leader in developing the technology

[[Page 27491]]

that has brought the computer into the homes of a large percentage

of our people. It also is an important source of foreign sales which

helps us in our balance of payments problem. It has helped make

American business more competitive with it's applications for them.

In short, we need Microsoft and we need it with the ability to keep

innovating. I support the settlement as it now stands.

Sincerely,

Ivan J. Botvin

5300 E. Weaver Dr

Centennial, CO

MTC-00024494

From: Andy Rosen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:40pm

Subject: Proposed settlement--unacceptable

To whom it may concern,

I have worked in the computer industry as a software engineer

and systems administrator for over 15 years. I am writing to express

my concerns about the proposed settlement by the Dept. of Justice

and Microsoft. There are two primary goals in any anti-trust remedy:

gains achieved through illegal means should be recovered and

competition should be restored to the relevant market.

It is my strong belief that, if approved, the settlement would

not penalize Microsoft in any way, nor would it restore competition

to the relevant market. In fact, it would further entrench

Microsoft's monopoly position and allow them, legally, to extend

that position to new markets. The proposed settlement includes no

penalties for Microsoft. They would simply be allowed to keep the

countless billions of dollars they have acquired as a result of

their illegal practices.

While the relevant market was defined as Personal Computer

Operating Systems, the proposed settlement does nothing to restore

competition to that market. Instead, it tries to ensure that third

parties will have continued access to the information necessary to

write application software for future Windows platforms.

It was shown in the trial that there is a significant

``applications'' barrier to entry. By helping companies

write *more* applications for Windows we would be helping Microsoft

to strengthen their position. Additionally, there are loopholes that

even a casual observer can recognize. For example, Microsoft would

be allowed to determine who will have access to new and existing

system interfaces. In other words, they would be allowed to pick and

choose who their competition will be in any application software

market.

Microsoft would also be allowed to block all access to major

portions of their interfaces by claiming they are part of system

security, or virus protection, or content management, etc. As they

have shown in the past, Microsoft is quite capable, and willing, to

tie unrelated products together not for technical reasons, but to

eliminate competition. Instead we should be taking steps to bring

existing applications to platforms that attempt to compete directly

with Windows, such as OS/2, Linux, BeOS, FreeBSD and UnixWare.

Microsoft had their year in court and were found guilty. The

trial is over. The appeals process is over. Now is not the time for

settlements. Now is not the time for judgment. Now is the time for

remedy.

Andy Rosen Senior Software Architect

and Systems Administrator

http://www.ajr.cx/pubring.asc

MTC-00024495

From: Carl Stewart

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:41pm

Subject: The Microsoft Case

Hi there,

While I may not be a US citizen, I'm in Canada by the way.

Microsoft has abused its monopoly and it should have a remedy put at

it. And here's my proposed remedy for it.

1. Split it up into 3 companies. One for operating system

products. One for Internet software. And the third for any other

kind of software.

2. Make it open up the API for all of its operating systems, and

future operating systems. So that programmers have the same chance

to make great products as it does itself.

3. Any proprietary feature in its Browser that it has, it must

open up so that competitors that make other internet browsers can

have that same set of features. In other words, it has to submit it

to W3C first, then if its approved, it can then add it to its

browser. So then its competitors can have the same features as well.

4. When it gives out licenses to OEM's, it cannot limit the OEM

to just having its operating system on the computer. This way if the

OEM wants to put 2 operating systems on the computer to give its

customer's a choice of which operating system to use, or to explore

another operating system like linux, while still using windows.

5. Give the OEM's a choice of which browser to ship with the

operating system. So if an OEM wants to ship Netscape instead of

Internet Explorer, it can. And if the consumer wants to use Internet

Explorer, then it can download it from Microsoft. Or at the very

least, a stripped down browser, with basic download capabilities and

html reading so that the consumer can choose which browser to use.

6. Open up the samba sharing system, so that competitors can

have full access on how to implement it in their operating systems.

Including how to access it from their operating system.

7. Microsoft cannot limit OEM's as to which software to include

and not to include, for example Microsoft cannot give them a lower

price or some other deal by only including Microsoft Office and not

a competitors Office Suite.

Well there's my ideas on the type of remedy Microsoft should be

given. Thanks for listening.

Regards,

Carl Stewart

MTC-00024496

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:39pm

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 Middlebrooks

5005 Casa Grande Dr.

Dickinoson, TX 77539

MTC-00024497

From: Ed Boutros

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:22pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As a user of Apple computer products it should be noted

Microsoft has not produced a version of their database called Access

for the Macintosh. To many people this may seem insignificant, but

what it does is eliminate the full integration of apple computers in

business environments. The other point is that in the windows

version of Outlook, the mail client, Microsoft created a networked

calendar system, which again was not provided for the Macintosh mail

client called Entourage. People may say so what, what I say these

omissions were done on purpose to maintain Apple's niche status in

the computer industry, since when an Apple computer is sold

Microsoft generates no money from the transaction, but may my

benefit from the purchase of their limited office suite. In order to

level the playing field, the company needs to be split in 3 ways,

one for operating systems, one for add on software and another for

services like web tv and .net. The company has vast influence and

must be monitored more closely, since now Microsoft now has the

ability to shut off software that is purchased but not registered.

There is always the possibility that at some point there could be

massive computer shut downs if someone hacked into the activation

system, or if a bug occurred in the activation system. This would

represent a serious nation security risk to the national and world

economy. The implications are serious.

Ed Boutros

24 Oak Brook Dr.

Ithaca, NY 14850

607-272-8902

MTC-00024498

From: Nall, Clinton (SCH)

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

Date: 1/25/02 12:45pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlment

I would like to register my disappointment with the current

proposed final judgement in this case. The terms API and middleware

are

[[Page 27492]]

so narrowly defined as to make the impact of this judgement minimal

to Microsoft. If anything, it will be licensed to continue it's

anti-competetive practices with impugnity. Any settlement that does

not toss out Microsofts preload agreements and open their office

suite formats and networking protocols to the light of day will be a

travesty and will pave the way for many more years of the Microsoft

non-benevolent monopoly.

Go back and get it right!

Clint Nall

250 Fairfax Drive

Alpharetta, GA 30004

MTC-00024499

From: Kevin Carter

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:43pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

RECOMMENDATION: Reject the current proposal. Two facts lead to

one conclusion my recommendation:

FACT 1: Microsoft Corporation has proven itself to be a powerful

and dangerous force because of the many ways it has leveraged its

monopoly in Windows OS-dependent markets.

FACT 2: The current potential settlement between Microsoft Corp.

and the U.S. Department of Justice proposes to maintain that dynamic

in the long term and impose short-term restraints based on

regulatory oversight. CONCLUSION: The current proposed settlement

between DOJ and Microsoft Corp. will fail to put an end to the

illegal monopoly; fail to prevent a return to anticompetitive

behavior; fail to deny the violator the benefits of its illegal

actions; and fail to ensure competition going forward.

RECOMMENDATION: Reject the current proposal.

Thank you.

--Kevin Carter

--18 Longfellow Road

--Arlington, MA 02476

MTC-00024500

From: Travis Morgan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 12:46pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The proposed settlement for the Microsoft Anti-Trust case is

outrageous and should not be allowed!

Travis Morgan

CIO, Inc.

Main Line: 913.962.6222

New Direct Dial: 913.562.5645

Turning Systems into Solutions

www.cioinc.com

To: ``David Farber -bs(by way of

Bernard A. Galler-bs)''

The boot license doesn't actually say that you can't install a

second OS.

What is says is:

1. You can't deliver a preinstalled machine in which Microsoft's

code bootstraps someone else's OS. It is technical possible to

[[Page 27511]]

do this with NT/2000/XP/etc., because the NT bootloader is

specifically designed to respect the preexistence of another OS and

incorporate that into the boot sequence; any MCSE knows this. It's

how NT systems allow you to preserve your previous boot option when

you upgrade from DOS, OS/2, or Windows 9x/ME. However ...

2. OEM's must use Microsoft's preinstallation tools to deploy

the OS on the machine. Since those tools (usually) start by blasting

away the contents of the disk and laying down Windows in a fresh

partition, any preexisting OS would be destroyed in the process.

Hence the trap: deploy the other OS first, and the OEM tools wipe it

away;

Deploy it after Windows, and you've used Microsoft's boot code

to launch a different OS.

It is trivially easy for end users and VAR's to set up dual-boot

systems. But--as the article points out--this would

require some interest on the part of customers for post-purchase

installation, and there is none. http://www.theregister.co.uk/

content/archive/21410.html Between 1997, when the DoJ began taking

the browser issue seriously, and when the final arguments were made

late in 1999, Be was the only competitor whose business solely

depended on providing competition to Microsoft on the consumer

desktop. It's strange then that it should ignore such compelling

evidence of anti-competitive behaviour. But the Antitrust staff

aren't the only people who are reluctant to grasp the nettle.

There's a widespread view in the Linux community that offering head-

on competition to Windows on the desktop isn't how Linux will

eventually win. The argument has some sound reasoning--it

points to historical changes in the economics of the infrastructure,

of the sort which saw midrange system replaced client/server

PCs--but ducks the difficult question. If you are going to

offer consumers an alternative to Windows, you're going to need

distribution, and overwhelmingly the least troublesome and most

convenient distribution point is a preloaded, pre-configured

installation. That means access to the PC's boot sequence.

At the LinuxWorldExpo panel discussion Jeremy Allison made few

people comfortable with his point that unless you break the client

monopoly, ``your alternative infrastructure is

irrelevant,'' Very few OEMs can afford not to offer Windows,

and while their freedom to offer alternatives is dictated to by the

Beast, the alternatives will languish. http://www.theregister.co.uk/

content/4/22670.html One possible concession by Microsoft in the

proposed AntiTrust settlement has come too late to save the company

which pressed hardest for its inclusion: Be, Inc. Section C/4 of the

remedy states that Microsoft may not forbid OEMs ``offering

users the option of launching other Operating Systems from the Basic

Input/ Output System or a non-Microsoft boot-loader or similar

program that launches prior to the start of the Windows Operating

System Product''. OEM agreements preventing PC manufacturers

from advertising the fact that an alternative was in fact, right in

front of the user, pre-installed.

In the case of Hitachi, the most significant OEM to offer BeOS

preinstalled, the user had to manually install a boot manager to

activate the BeOS partition, a process which involved creating their

own floppy boot disk. The package could not include a boot floppy,

and the Windows desktop had no icons enabling the automation of the

process, or even giving any indication that an alternative existed

on the PC. I can't grab everything from this article, but it's a

good read: http://www.netaction.org/msoft/world/ I found this

document via http://www.nyx.net/-lmulcahy/microsoft-bad- faith.html

There a whole host of articles out there explaingin why the DOJ

missed the boat and why Microsoft is going to get away scot free

from this mess if some sever changes don't take place. I can't even

begin to explain how bad this is going to be for the US and world

economy if Microsoft isn't stopped.

Thank you for yout time,

Mitch Anderson

MTC-00024610

From: Tom Denman

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

Date: 1/25/02 1:52pm

Subject: Microsoft

AVTEX

Thomas J. Denman

5775 West Old Shakopee Road

Suite 160

Bloomington, Mn 55437

(952) 831-3710

January 9, 2002

Attorney General John Ashcroft

US Department of Justice,

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Mr. Ashcroft:

I am writing this letter to simply state my support of the DOJ

antitrust settlement involving Microsoft. The settlement reached

between Microsoft and the Department of Justice is fair and

reasonable. The design of the settlement is to be beneficial to both

the IT industry and the consumer alike, without unfairly attacking

Microsoft.

It is essential that the DOJ resolve this issue swiftly. An

exorbitant amount of American tax dollars have been spent just so

that Microsoft's competitors could attack their opposition. This

country is based on free enterprise, and it seems that the

settlement already goes against the grain of that idea. To continue

litigation would just mean a slow suffocation of laissez-faire

principles.

As it is, Microsoft will have to give up software codes and

intellectual property just to appease the DO J, yet some jealous and

selfish special interests would prefer to move on, even though this

is clearly not in the public interest. I strongly recommend that all

action at the federal level be stopped.

Sincerely,

Thomas Denman

Executive Vice President

MTC-00024611

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 1:49pm

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 Luther

94 Henry Clay Rd

Newport News, VA 23601

MTC-00024612

From: Jonathan Leinwand

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 1:52pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am concerned that the Microsoft settlement is letting

Microsoft do something that would otherwise be illegal. By letting

Microsoft provide free software to a market it has not yet

dominated, the Justice Department is letting them do exactly what

was done to Netscape. Free Windows software will tilt decisions

towards Intel based computers running Windows, thus hurting

competition in the education market place. The settlement needs to

correct the behavior of the offender and not try to punish it or try

to do a good deed. Giving out free software from Microsoft will not

benefit educators, students or competition.

Jonathan D. Leinwand, Esq.

MTC-00024613

From: Charles Borner

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 1:55pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Pardon me if I seem naive about this. I simply do not understand

why, if Microsoft is guilty of monopolistic practices, the

government isn't stepping in and demanding real measures to

dismantle this monopoly. Simply allowing Microsoft to give away

product and old, refurbished computers isn't an effective remedy to

this. It simply mirrors what happened when they began giving their

Internet Explorer browser away for free.

Because they have huge, effectively bottomless cash reserves,

they can easily weather this settlement. Note: The settlement's cash

value is roughly equal to Microsoft's MONTLY profit margin. It

doesn't even begin to touch the billions Microsoft has socked away

in the bank. Additionally, this damages the competition even

further. Because now the government is effectively distributing

software for Microsoft. For free. How are competitors supposed to

compete with products being GIVEN away? The answer? They CAN'T. So

the settlement isn't even a slap on the wrists for Microsoft. It has

the effect of giving a government sanction to an illegal monopoly.

[[Page 27512]]

And more, government assistance in furthering that monopoly. The DOJ

needs to stop trying to take the easy, feel-good way out of this,

admittedly, painful situation. The DOJ needs to begin seeking hard,

truly workable soloutions that REALLY penalize Microsoft for their

illegal activities. Stop doing what's easy, and do what's RIGHT for

a change.

Charles Borner: [email protected]

5550 Abbey Dr.

Suite 4M

Lisle, IL 60532

MTC-00024614

From: P T Withington

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 1:52pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

In my opinion, the Proposed Final Judgement in United States vs.

Microsoft is insufficient to prevent Microsoft's continuance of

anti-competetive practices to the detriment of computer users

everywhere.

P. T. Withington

MTC-00024615

From: David Halonen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 1:57pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I oppose ``fining'' Microsoft by allowing them to have

a free hand to donate MS software to schools--its tanamount to

letting the fox in the henhouse! The fact that MS writes bad code,

has a lousy user interface, and can't spell security to save Bill's

fortune is beyond refute. And should not be a part of this

settlement process. The fact is that MS has been found in violation

of the law. The fact that they look at the law in disdain (ignoring

prior rulings) calls out for a stiff punishment. I strongly

encourage the gov't to punish MS to the fullest extent of the law.

MS has clearly demonstrated time and time again, it only respects

pure, unadulterated force. Hit them between the eyes! Its the only

language they understand.

Regards,

David Halonen

The Halonen Company

10131 Fairlane, Suite 1215

South Lyon, MI 48178

(734) 449-2956

(810) 923-0780 cell

MTC-00024616

From: Aaron Sherman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 1:55pm

Subject: Propose Microsoft settlement

I'll keep this short, since I'm sure many who submit will not.

The basic problem that Microsoft's business practices present to the

rest of the industry is incompatibility of interfaces. The rest of

the industry works very hard in standards organizations,

documentation and in other ways to unify interfaces between software

applications. Microsoft has done just the opposite. If the only

change that results from this investigation is that Microsft is

forced to publish details of their interfaces between, e.g.,

Internet Explorer and the Windows NT/2000/XP operating systems or

between Office and the Win32 subsystem in full (not in general

detail), then the industry would be able to compete on those

platforms with the existing Microsoft products. Generally, this is

not required of software companies because they do not straddle the

operating system and application software markets. Where Microsoft

does, they present a barrier to market for non-Microsoft

applications simply by hiding the interfaces that their application

products use.

So, in short: publish interfaces well in advance of major

revisions; maintain and support published interface implementations

accross minor revisions; restrain Microsoft from applying for any

patents which could prevent application software competitors from

using said interfaces without paying royalties (note: this does not

prevent Microsoft from acquiring patents, so long as they do not

touch on application/platform interfaces). Interfaces should

include: save file formats; application embedding protocols and

controls; network protocols; extension languages; system libraries;

operating system interfaces to application such as the browser.

MTC-00024617

From: Florence Jones

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 1:56pm

Subject: Microsoft antitrust settlement agreement

Attorney General John Ashcroft

US Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Mr. Ashcroft:

I support the Microsoft antitrust settlement agreement. While I

have been opposed to this lawsuit from its inception, I believe

settling the case now is in everyone's best interests. The

settlement agreement provides for a variety of concessions on

Microsoft's part. They have agreed to increase server

interoperability. They have also agreed to make a great deal of

changes in the way they handle their relationships with software

developers. Once the settlement agreement is finalized, Microsoft

will not retaliate against software or hardware developers who

develop or promote software that competes with Windows. Nothing more

should be expected or required of Microsoft beyond the scope of the

current settlement agreement. I urge your continued support of

resolving this case. Thank you for your efforts in this regard.

Sincerely,

Florence Jones

PO Box 281/451 Coul Ave.

Buckley, WA 98321

phone 360-829-9293

MTC-00024618

From: Phil Parker

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:06pm

Subject: proposed settlement

I support the Kansas AG and *do not* support the pending

settlement.

Phillip E. Parker

Math. Dept. #33

Wichita St. Univ.

1845 N. Fairmount

Wichita KS 67260-0033

USA

MTC-00024619

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 1:55pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Microsoft is a convicted monopolist and I do not trust them with

my data. I will vote with my conscience next time you guys are up

for re-election or anything. ``What's good for General Motors

is what's good for the country'' is and was WRONG.

Haven't we learned enough about the Enron scandal, for instance?

What are you guys thinking?

Patrick McGraw

Network Analyst

Cejka & Company

800.678.7858

fax 314 863 1705

MTC-00024620

From: Getz, Steve (SM)

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

Date: 1/25/02 1:59pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This settlement is a bad idea. You need to break up the

company--split off the operating system group from the rest.

First they claim the browser is now part of the operating system.

What keeps them from next saying Microsoft Office is now part of the

operating system thus killing off the competition for word

processing, spreadsheets, etc. Then they can add virus utilities to

the operating system.

Steve Getz

Sarnia

519-339-6412

MTC-00024621

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 1:55pm

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,

MONROE STRAWN

P. O. BOX 1001

NORTH HIGHLANDS, CA 95660

MTC-00024623

From: Tim Van Riper

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 9:06am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

In order for this settlement to be fair, Microsoft should not be

allowed to pay

[[Page 27513]]

damages by providing ``free'' software and/or hardware.

The penalty must be monetary so schools can have the freedom to

choose which platform they wish. By giving Microsoft the option of

paying their penalty in kind, they not only settle the lawsuit, but

grab and even larger marketshare by dumping their garbage software

and tired old clone hardware off on unsuspecting students and

teachers. That surely wouldn't be fair. Make Microsoft pay with REAL

money.

Timothy Van Riper

Salem, Virginia

MTC-00024625

From: David Diplock

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

Date: 1/25/02 2:03pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To: Renata B. Hesse

Antitrust Division

U.S. Department of Justice

601 D Street NW Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20530-0001

As a software engineer with over 10 years of experience

developing for various platforms, I wish to comment on the proposed

Microsoft settlement (PFJ) under the Tunney Act. I agree with the

problems identified in Dan Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://

www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html ), and have asked to be included as a co-signer to

his letter. In addition, I would like to summarize my personal views

on the PFJ. The PFJ as currently written simply does not go far

enough. There is no doubt, given Microsoft's past behavior, that it

will attempt to circumvent and evade the terms of this agreement.

The PFJ is so narrowly defined that it allows plenty of maneuvering

room, especially considering that it will be applied in an industry

as fluid as the software industry. Therefore, the PFJ will fail in

its intended purpose--to prevent Microsoft from continuing its

illegal and anticompetitive practices. Such failure would clearly

not be in the public interest. Strengthening the settlement

agreement, as proposed by Dan Kegel and by certain plaintiff states,

is necessary for the remedy to be effective.

Sincerely,

David Diplock

San Diego, California

Software Engineer,

Peregrine Systems

MTC-00024626

From: Michael Dragone

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom it May Concern:

I'll keep my comments regarding the proposed Microsoft

Settlement brief. The settlement in its current form essentially

gives Microsoft the legal right to continue to do as they please.

Furthermore, I've noticed that it seems to be relatively easy for

Microsoft to circumvent any restrictions that are in place that they

find to be a hindrance. Microsoft has been found to be a monopoly.

This has been affirmed by a Court of Appeals. When AT&T was

found to be a monopoly, they were broken up into Baby Bells. I'm not

entirely certain that a breakup of Microsoft is the best solution (a

slew of Baby Microsofts might not help the matter). Regardless, a

harsher penatly must be imposed on this company. They literally have

their collective hands in almost every facet of the Information

Technology industry. Their use of disgusting business practices to

enhance their own net worth causes nothing but disdain. If they are

not stopped now, our entire IT infrastructure may one day be

entirely Microsoft-driven. This is highly undesirable.

Thank you for your time.

MTC-00024627

From: LUC,BIEN (HP-Cupertino,exl)

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

Date: 1/25/02 2:03pm

Hi Mr Attorney General,

Attached please find my opinion about the Microsoft litigation.

Thanks,

Bien Luc

19420 Homestead Road

Cupertino, CA 95014-0606

January25,2002

Attorney General John Ashcroft

US Department of Justice,

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

The economically damaging and unfair litigation against

Microsoft must come to an end. The current settlement with Microsoft

is in the best interests of California, the IT industry, and the

economy. The settlement has placed a number of restrictions on

Microsoft. For example, Microsoft has agreed to a ``Technical

Committee'' that will monitor the company's compliance with the

settlement. In addition, Microsoft agreed to design future versions

of Windows to make it easy for consumers and computer makers to

promote non-Microsoft products within Windows. Also, Microsoft has

agreed not to retaliate against computer makers who ship software

that competes with anything in its Windows operating system. These

changes in Microsoft's behavior will result in more options for

consumers as well as expanded competition in technology sector. More

importantly, the settlement will end three years of unnecessary

litigation and will let us move forward. I urge you to support it.

Sincerely,

Bien Luc

MTC-00024628

From: Ann Lee

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:03pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe that the proposed settlement that has been offered,

Microsoft giving approx. $1 billion in refurbished computers and

software to schools to settle their lawsuits, is not only

acceptable, but possibly illegal. Nor does it do anything to address

the actual people and businesses that have been harmed by it's

monopolic behavior. As John Kheit pointed out in his article in The

Mac Observer, http://www.macobserver.com/, ``. . . Such

predatory pricing and/or dumping tactics are normally illegal for a

convicted monopolist. U.S. v. Columbia Steel Co., 334 U.S. 495, 530

(1948); Western Concrete Structures Co., Inc. v. Mitsui & Co.

U.S.A.), Inc., 760 F.2d 1013, 1018 (9th Cir. 1985). Thus, it is

currently illegal for Microsoft to give its software to the

educational market for free or at a price below its costs because

they have been found to be a monopoly. However, if the government

agrees to Microsoft's proposed settlement with the states, then the

government will at the very least be providing Microsoft with an

exception to this rule, or at worst be a collaborator in illegal

predatory pricing and dumping.''

Microsoft should be punished for their anti-competitive

behaviour, not rewarded with another market to monopolize. Also, any

settlement should be focused towards the consumer and business

community, not an irrelevant third party.

E. Ann Lee

2520 W 32nd Avd

Denver, CO 80211

303-455-6728

MTC-00024629

From: Chris McGrew

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:03pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs,

It is my opinion that the proposed settlement is flawed. If

Microsoft is guilty of monopolistic practices, as they have been

found to be, then the proposed remedy of solution amounts to nothing

more than a wrist slap. Microsoft will be little inconvenienced by

these measures. I don't believe that breaking up Microsoft into

different companies will help and that is not what I believe is

fair. I do believe that MS is guilty of monopolistic practices,

though I also believe that virtually any company that was able to

maneuver themselves into the same position, would have employed

almost identical tactics. These need to be curbed to allow industry

to flourish.

Microsoft is not a very innovator company, but they do update

their products from customer input. They should not be allowed to

kill off the smaller fish in the pond before these fish can become

real competition by giving away a competing product for free. This

practice doesn1t allow for fair competition.

I am not sure how to fix this, but as I have stated earlier, the

proposed settlement is nothing more than an ineffectual wrist slap.

Chris McGrew

2605 Oaks Ave

Everett, WA 98201

MTC-00024630

From: Mike Everett-Lane

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:03pm

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 Microsoft

settlement's inadequacy in improving the competitive environment in

the software industry. Specifically, I would like to address the

veto against open source programming.

[[Page 27514]]

Open source programming is one of the most important revolutions

in computer science. The Internet has enabled programmers from

across the globe to create software collaboratively. Examples

include Apache, GNU/Linux, Samba, etc. Under section J.2.c.,

Microsoft does not need to make ANY API available to groups that

fail to meet ``reasonable, objective standards established by

Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its

business.'' This effectively gives Microsoft a veto over

sharing any information with open source development projects,

because Open Source projects are usually performed by volunteers,

and therefore would not be considered authentic, or viable

businesses. This will have a chilling effect on Open Source

development--which in turn will reduce competition and halt the

creation of new software. I cannot see how this would benefit

consumers. The DOJ should revise its settlement, so that Microsoft

cannot discriminate between for-profit and nonprofit groups in API

disclosure.

Sincerely,

Michael Everett-Lane

155 Seventh Avenue

Brooklyn NY 11215

MTC-00024631

From: Ron Robertson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:03pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I wish to comment that I don1t think the proposed settlement

against Microsoft goes far enough. Nothing will change or be

improved with your current proposal. I also think it1s wrong the way

Microsoft breaks every standard and uses their market share to force

everyone to use their products, particularly web browsers.

Sincerely,

Ron Robertson

Fresno, CA

MTC-00024632

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:04pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Gentlemen,

A few brief words stating how upset I am that you are letting

Microsoft get away with anti-competitive practices with nothing more

than a slap on the wrist. No fine could be enough, given the

company's huge resources, and the whole idea to give schools their

inferior software was just another obvious grab for market share.

The only way to force MS to cooperate is to force them to open their

operating system's code for all to see. Barring that, they must make

all API files open source, so that other software companies might be

able to write programs without the handicap of not having access to

the internal system dynamics. If this is the best that the

Department of Justice can do for the people of America, you may as

well turn in your resignations.

disrespectfully yours

Steve Gattuso

MTC-00024633

From: Larry Melillo

To: Microsoft

ATR,[email protected]@inetgw

Date: 1/25/02 2:04pm

Subject: Comments on the Microsoft Proposed Final Judgment

TWIMC: Having read the Proposed Final Judgment, I believe

harsher remedies are needed to prevent Microsoft from extending its

monopoly in the future. In particular, Microsoft can not be allowed

to self-regulate itself regarding the classification of new

technologies as part of the Windows OS. Unless emerging companies

are allowed to have a fair opportunity to develop and exploit

breakthrough technologies, this proposed PFJ may allow future

technology development to be delayed/ignored based on the whims of a

single company's strategic intent. As technology will likely

continue to be a major driver of the world's economy, this simply is

not an acceptable alternative. At the very least, harsher regulatory

controls should be implemented as part of the PFJ.

Regards,

Larry Melillo

San Francisco, CA 94109

MTC-00024634

From: Spunk S. Spunk III

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hello,

I would like to voice my opinion of the Microsoft Settlement and

ask you to PLEASE continue the trial. The current settlement does

nothing to Microsoft and worse yet, many of the

``penalties'' actually strengthen Microsoft's monopoly. I

think it allows them to continue bullying everyone who gets in their

way as they always have done and, in fact, are continuing to do.

Thank you,

Brian Ray

MTC-00024635

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:02pm

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,

andrew russell 2414 state street erie, PA 16503

MTC-00024636

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The settlement reached between the Department of Justice and

Microsoft is a disgrace. Microsoft committed crimes and their

punishment is no punishment at all! How can I be proud to be an

American under these conditions? I take an active part in the

education of my children. How do I explain to them that our country

is based on law but that law does not apply to the

wealthy--that our leaders are corrupt. You're destroying MY

country and it's heritage. I'm ashamed of the whole lot of you. You

disgust me.

Ed Sawicki

MTC-00024637

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

The constant litigations brought against Microsoft, simply

because the company is a success, need to stop, and those already

brought against Microsoft need to be dismissed, or at least,

diminished. The original case brought against Microsoft was a case

of ``sour grapes'', fueled by the liberal, and nonsensical

idea that ``it's not fair'' that one company succeeds more

than another. That same nonsensical idea extends to the individual,

and therefor those indivduals who succeed are excoriated and

punished by an increasingly dictatorial and intrusive government.

The idea that the success of one individual helps the success of the

next individual is no longer paramount in this country, because that

is a capitalistic concept, and the country is becoming more and more

socialistic. if not out-right communistic. However, Communism and

Socialism are not what made this country great, nor will they keep

it great.

Richard L. Bushman

165 Fruit Street

Hopkinton, MA 01748

508-435-4003

MTC-00024638

From: Rod Martin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 1:52pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The proposed settlement for Microsoft is a very bad idea and

completely insufficient.

MTC-00024639

From: George Heller

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:06pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The proposed settlement is a bad idea. All it will allow for is

big companies with deep pockets to tie up cases in court long enough

that when the time comes for judgement the whole case seems

irrelevant. At that point, they're unaffected because they've

already accomplished what they've wanted to do: completely destroy

all competition.

MTC-00024640

From: E. Tomchin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:06pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To: Renata B. Hesse

[[Page 27515]]

Antitrust Division

U.S. Department of Justice

Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Ms. Hesse,

After reviewing the Microsoft settlement documents it is my

considered opinion that the proposed settlement not only does not

prevent Microsoft from continuing in their heavy-handed and

competition-strangling behavior, but it completely fails to address

one of the worst offenses Microsoft has committed to date: to wit,

the inauguration of Microsoft's new XP operating system with its

Windows Product Activation (WPA) function. WPA appears fraudulent

and monopolizing in that if a consumer fails to get Microsoft's

permission to activate the operating system, which arguably is their

right, it prevents that consumer from accessing their own personal

and private files on that computer and permanently locks that

consumer out of their own computer. This simple fact seems prima

facie evidence that Microsoft has not only failed to adhere to the

spirit of the settlement agreement, but has taken their heavy-handed

monopoly to new heights.

Further, Microsoft has announced that it soon will cease all

support of earlier operating systems, including Windows 95, Windows

98, Windows ME and Windows 2000. This appears to be a monopolizing

move that is designed to force people to abandon any earlier

operating system they may own and choose to keep and force them to

purchase XP. This cessation of support for earlier Microsoft

operating systems would not be that heavy-handed and monopolizing if

Microsoft would allow the downloading of all necessary security

patches and Service Packs so that a user may bring those operating

systems up to secure functionality when the operating system needs

reinstalling, which it quite frequently does due to numerous bugs

and defects in the original product. Overall, it appears that

Microsoft is being allowed to continue to control and interfere with

a consumer's right to maintain an operating system they have

purchased from Microsoft. The settlement does not address any of the

issues I have put forth above.

Thank you for the opportunity to address these issues.

Sincerely,

Edward A. Tomchin

P. O. Box 10009

Golden Valley, AZ 86413

MTC-00024641

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:04pm

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,

Betty Launius

3827 Verner Dr.

Peoria, IL 61615

MTC-00024642

From: Drew Dean

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:07pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

(I'm not sure this got through the first time; it's the same

text)

Renata B. Hesse

Antitrust Division

U.S. Department of Justice

601 D Street NW Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Ms. Hesse and Judge Kollar-Kotelly:

I wish to express my belief that the Revised Proposed Final

Judgment (RPFJ) in US v. Microsoft is not in the public interest,

and respectfully urge the Court not to approve it. While the RPFJ is

a substantial improvement over the original PFJ, it remains the case

that the exclusions swallow the rule. The following three examples

are illustrative, but by no means the only problematic areas in the

RPFJ.

(1) Section III.J.2. The exclusions in subpart (b), ``has a

reasonable business need for the API, Documentation, or

Communications Protocol for a planned or shipping product,''

(c) ``meets reasonable, objective standards established by

Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its

business,'' and (d) ``agrees to submit, at its own

expense, any computer programs 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, which

specifications shall be related to proper operation and integrity of

the systems and mechanisms identified in this paragraph.''

serve to exclude the people that most need this documentation,

namely, the Samba team (see http://www.samba.org). The Samba team

has produced an open-source implementation of the Microsoft SMB/CIFS

protocols for file and printer sharing. Being an open source

project, their code is freely available, and they are not a

business. A reasonable interpretation of subparagraphs (b) and (c)

would make them ineligible to benefit from the remedies prescribed

in Sections III.D and III.E. Furthermore, the cost of the testing

required by Section II.J.2.(d) is likely to be prohibitive for

individuals, and non-profit open source projects, further limiting

competition. While the Samba team is the most immediately relevant

example, these concerns also apply to the developers of the Linux

operating system and the Apache Web server.

All three of these programs are used by large numbers of people,

and represent direct competition to Microsoft.

(2) The definitions in Sections VI.J, VI.K, and VI.T

(``Microsoft Middleware'', ``Microsoft Middleware

Product'', and ``Trademarked'', respectively) appear

to exclude Microsoft's Reader (see http://www.microsoft.com/reader).

Microsoft Reader is the company's software for the display of

electronic books. I reach the conclusion that Reader is not covered

by the RPFJ as follows: (1) Sections VI.J.2, and VI.K.2.b.iii both

require that the software ``is Trademarked.'' (2) Section

VI.T defines ``Trademarked''. Sub-paragraph (iii) says

``asserting the name as a trademark in the United States in a

demand letter or lawsuit. Any product distributed under descriptive

or generic terms or a name comprised of the Microsoft(r) or

Windows(r) trademarks together with descriptive or generic terms

shall not be Trademarked as that term is used in this Final

Judgment.''

(3) Microsoft Reader certainly is a name comprised of

``Microsoft'' and a generic term, ``Reader,''

and by the plain meaning of Section VI.T.(iii) is not Trademarked.

Hence, it is neither Microsoft Middleware nor a Microsoft Middleware

Product, and appears to fall entirely outside the scope of the RPFJ.

While the electronic book market is highly immature at present, many

believe that it will come to dominate traditional, paper-based,

publishing. The potential economies of digital storage and

transmission are enormous. Publishing is a multi-billion dollar per

year market and so the status of Microsoft Reader and competing

products will be of great competitive significance. I believe that

the public interest is best served by letting this potential market

evolve in a free, competitive manner. Leaving Microsoft

unconstrained is not consistent with this goal. I also note that

Microsoft can avoid having any new product designated as a Microsoft

Middleware Product under the RPFJ by the simple expedient of naming

it so that it falls outside the definition of Trademarked (Section

VI.T). (3) I quote Section VI.U in its entirety: ``Windows

Operating System Product'' means the software code (as opposed

to source code) distributed commercially by Microsoft for use with

Personal Computers as Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Home,

Windows XP Professional, and successors to the foregoing, including

the Personal Computer versions of the products currently code named

``Longhorn'' and ``Blackcomb'' and their

successors, including upgrades, bug fixes, service packs, etc. The

software code that comprises a Windows Operating System Product

shall be determined by Microsoft in its sole discretion.

This definition has two problems. First, it is internally

inconsistent. It begins by defining the code comprising a

``Windows Operating System Product.'' It then follows that

definition by contradicting itself, ``The software code that

comprises a Windows Operating System Product shall be determined by

Microsoft in its sole discretion.'' Which definition is meant

to prevail? Neither is clearly subordinate to the other. Second, in

numerous places in the RPFJ, language of the form ``not

inconsistent with this Final Judgment'', ``consistent with

this Final Judgment'', or ``exercising any of

[[Page 27516]]

the options or alternatives provided for under this Final

Judgment'' appears. It is, however, notably missing in Section

VI.U. Given the numerous other appearances of this language, its

lack here appears to be significant. While one might assume that any

such determinations by Microsoft would have to be consistent with

the RPFJ, plain reading of this definition does not require it. As

there is no indication that this definition is subordinate to the

rest of the RFPJ, this could be interpreted as undermining the

intent of the RFPJ, particularly in regard to middleware products. I

believe the settlement would be substantially strengthened by

replacing the final sentence with: ``The software code that

comprises a Windows Operating System Product shall be determined by

Microsoft in its sole discretion, consistent with this Final

Judgment.''

The above examples are illustrative of the flawed approach taken

in the Revised Proposed Final Judgment. I believe that the Revised

Proposed Final Judgment is not in the public interest, and

respectfully urge the Court not to approve it.

Sincerely,

Drew Dean

21070 White Fir Ct.

Cupertino, CA 95014

MTC-00024643

From: Terryk

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:14pm

Subject: Microsoft

I am adamantly opposed to the proposed DOJ settlement. I have

been in the computer business since the early ``60's. I watched

for years as Microsoft ran business after business, out of business.

Netscape, a fine browser, was one of the most visible, but by far,

not the only one. Stac, a disk compression company is one that comes

to mind, when Microsoft ``added'' a near copy of it to

Windows, in the form of ``Double disk''. The original

proposed settlement, breakup of Microsoft, and a Windows product

without Internet Explorer was by far the best proposal. I believe

the remaining nine states, and now AOL, are absolutely right to

demand a much better solution to a major monopolistic company that

Microsoft is. Not to mention the arrogance of Mr. Bill Gates.

I. L. Koelling email = [email protected]

MTC-00024644

From: Russell Tilton

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:11pm

Subject: microsoft

We hope that Microsoft stays strong in the marketplace.

Personally, we like their products and have no complaints about

their service. I would hate to see another negative impact on the NW

at this point in time. As long as there are checks and balances, I

don't even mind if they control the market place because

decentralization may be cumbersome and difficult to work with given

the technical expertise needed to work with different systems. They

would all need to be integrated. A big order, wouldn't you say?

MTC-00024645

From: Jerome

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:10pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The Federal Anti-trust settlement in this case was a travesty.

It did little to a company that violated past agreements on anti-

competative behavior of microsoft. The American public deserves a

Judicial system that will look out for them, and this settlements do

not do this. The Government has proven their case agenst Microsoft,

and the Federal Courts have a duty to the people of the United

States to ensure that it does not happen again, and the only way

that they can do this is to apply a penelty which will discourage,

or make it impossable for Microsoft to practice this behavior in the

future. Given some of Microsoft's latest aquisitions (intelectual

property which includes a rival 3-D graphics technology, Open GL),

and software technologies in thier latest OS, I feel that they have

continued these pracices even while litigation in the current Anti-

trust case is pending. I would like to see harsher penelties applied

to Microsoft for these reasons.

Jerome Gantner

MTC-00024646

From: Nick Snyder

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

Date: 1/25/02 2:12pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe that the only thing Microsoft should be able to do, is

pay the money. They should not donate software, computers and what

not. They should put the money into a ``fund'' for each

school and have the school buy what computer software, hardware and

whatever other computer stuff they need.

Thought I would share.

Nick Snyder

MTC-00024647

From: L.C. Mathison

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:16pm

Subject: Stop Microsoft's Monolopy

The proposed DOJ vs Microsoft settlement is bad for everyone

except Microsoft. Please do not accept and make legal the monolopy

Microsoft now holds. Please take any appropriate measures to

completely stop Microsoft's monolopy by breaking them into

competitive companies or stop the pre loading of Microsoft Operating

systems and add-on programs such as Internet Explorer which caused

the first public outcry.

Please!

Please!

Listen to the people!

Leslie C. Mathison

1128 West Collinwood Circle

Opelika, AL 36801

Phone 334-749-5891

MTC-00024648

From: Son, Seha (S.)

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

Date: 1/25/02 2:14pm

Subject: Current AOL litigation

I believe that the both companies time and resources should be

spent toward ultimate end-consumers, not in the courtroom. Both

companies should be engaged in fair and mutual competition and

perhaps cooperation for the benefit of ,again, consumers. I'd like

to see AOL's litigation to end immediately so that the consumers

win.

MTC-00024649

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:13pm

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,

Glenn Koons

5314 4th

Long Beach, CA 90814

MTC-00024650

From: Tom

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:16pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The proposed settlement is not sufficient punishment to

Microsoft. Microsoft uses their control of the operating system harm

other companies who were trying to compete. A proper settlement

would lessen the power that Microsoft wields over the industry.

Tom Solnok

706 Sumac Rd

Derby, KS 67037

MTC-00024651

From: Scott Layman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:18pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would like to see Microsoft broken up. If not broken up, then

the governmnt needs to keep a very close watch on them. Microsoft

shouldn't decide on thier punishment. The courts should, and the

punishment should not be in Microsoft's favor. The giving 1 billion

$ of microsoft products to schools is just feeding the monoploy

fire! Microsoft's business practices are down right EVIL. It amazes

me at how they could get away with most of the stuff they do.

Microsoft's punishment needs to be harsh.

MTC-00024652

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:18pro

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

RICHARD LAMB

[[Page 27517]]

1357 43rd Avenue Unit 35

Greeley, Colorado 80634

January 25,2002

Attorney General John Ashcroft

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Mr. Ashcroft,

The reason I am writing to you is to ask that you make certain

the settlement that was reached recently between the Justice

Department and Microsoft is concluded. I am concerned that anti-

Microsoft groups may try to harm the settlement process. The Justice

Department and Microsoft want to settle this case. Antagonists of

the settlement contend that this agreement is hard enough on

Microsoft. However, considering this settlement makes Microsoft

share more information with competing software firms than ever

before proves these contentions are wrong. This settlement discloses

Microsoft/Es internal interfaces, which is a major concession and

unprecedented. Also, Microsoft has agreed to share its secrets of

server interoperability. With these two disclosures, Microsoft will

be creating more competitiveness in the IT industry. Opponents of

the settlement don't seem to be concerned with this; they appear to

have more concern with punishing Microsoft.

I appreciate you taking time to consider my views on this issue.

I urge you to settle this case as has been planned.

Sincerely,

Richard Lamb

MTC-00024655

From: Sonia Arrison

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:20pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

January 25, 2002

Ms. Renata Hesse

Trial Attorney

Antitrust Division

Department of Justice

601 D Street NW, Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20530

Re: Settlement of US v. Microsoft

Dear Ms. Hesse:

The Pacific Research Institute is a non-profit, San Francisco-

based public policy think tank dedicated to promoting individual

freedom and personal responsibility. This letter is being submitted

to the courts as part of the Tunney Act proceedings as it relates to

the Final Judgment Stipulation and Competitive Impact Statement in

US v. Microsoft. On behalf of Pacific Research Institute, I have

written on and researched the Microsoft issue extensively. It is the

position of our organization that approving the settlement in this

case is in the best interest of consumers and the technology

industry.

As the director for the Pacific Research Institutes Center for

Technology Studies, I have worked on this issue from very early on

in its history. I reviewed the position of the federal government

and state attorneys general as well as the position taken by

MicrosoftA competitors. The antitrust case brought against Microsoft

was neither justified nor in the best interest of American

consumers. Now, four years later, the courts have an opportunity to

mitigate the mistakes made by the Justice Department and previous

courts by supporting the settlement. The settlement being proposed

is the right course of action to take. By forcing Microsoft to open

their operating system, prevent unfair bundling, and create various

forms of oversight, the settlement will address the concerns of

those who called for this trial in the beginning. As an added

benefit, accepting the settlement will provide a greatly needed lift

for the national economy. The damaging effect of this case on our

economy is obvious. In the two weeks when the first round of

settlement talks between Microsoft and Justice Department collapsed,

the value of Microsoft stock in the California Public Employees

Retirement System fell by over $700 million. Our current economic

climate is not one that can easily withstand another setback of that

severity. I am including with this letter an article I wrote in July

2001 and a white paper written by our policy fellow, Helen Chaney. I

hope this information is helpful to the court.

Sincerely,

Sonia Arrison

Director, Center for Technology Studies

Pacific Research Institute

755 Sansome Street, suite 450

San Francisco, CA 94111

451-989-0833 x107

MTC-00024656

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:17pm

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,

Clyde Reynolds

2012 17th Ave

Forest Grove, OR 97116

MTC-00024659

From: Phil Russell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:20pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I respectfully ask that you carefully avoid being swayed by a

massive Microsoft-led write-in campaign. I do not favor the

``billion dollars in computers and software to schools''

settlement for many reasons. It is difficult to trust Microsoft,

given the lies Bill Gates is prone to telling. Would Microsoft claim

the $429 cost for every copy of Microsoft Office it would give to

schools? Or would they claim their actual cost of somewhere less

than $2? I suspect the latter. When that copy of Microsoft Office

has to be upgraded, doesn't this lock the schools into Microsoft

products far beyond the initial copy of the application? Apple

Computer is much admired and used in schools. This is one area where

Microsoft does not have a 90 to 10 advantage over Apple. The

proposed settlement would tear into Apple's share. Given the extreme

wealth of Microsoft, gained while unlawfully running roughshod over

other companies, one billion dollars in restitution is a huge joke.

Perhaps 10 or 15 billion might be more rational. Microsoft is one

huge predatory company, intent on taking over EVERYTHING in the

computer and internet world and MORE. Strong penalties are

necessary.

Thanks for listening to an every-day computer user.

Phil Russell

1420 SW Crest Circle

Waldport, OR 97394

541-563-2501

Explaining the proposed Microsoft punishment:

``...someone is caught breaking into your house, offers to

repair the damage instead of going to jail, if they can put up a

massive billboard for their house maintenance business in your front

yard for six months...''--MacOpinion

MTC-00024660

From: Joel T. Osburn

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:21pm

Subject: Please reject the proposed settlement

A quick review of pertinent Facts: * Microsoft had (and

maintains) a monopoly on desktop computer operating systems. *

Microsoft used (and still uses) this monopoly to extend it's reach

into other markets. * Microsoft developed monopolies in other

markets using this general tactic, including but not limited to:

internet browsing software, office suites, entry level database

software. * Microsoft violated a Consent Decree issued 15 July, 1994

(Civil Action # 94-1564, US vs. Microsoft (http://

www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f0000/0047.htm), also as a result of abusing

it's monopoly to stifle competition, and extend into new markets. *

In court, Microsoft, including it's Chairman and it's CEO,

repeatedly lied under oath. * By extending it's monopoly via these

illegal means, Microsoft has grown at unprecedented rates for twenty

years, and is one of the richest corporations in the world, with no

debt, and a vast amount of cash. Observations regarding the impact

of the above facts on consumers: * The price of software in those

markets which Microsoft dominates has remained steady while in other

markets average prices have dropped. * There have been no new

innovations in general internet browsing software from Microsoft

since they released version 5 of Internet Explorer over four years

ago. The pace of innovation previously observed was a direct result

of competition that no longer exists. Microsoft's Internet Explorer

has yet to conform to published, accepted standards;

[[Page 27518]]

instead, web developers conform to Internet Explorer's peculiarities

rather than the accepted standards. This leads to: By dominating

markets, Microsoft has positioned itself and it's products as a

defacto standard by extending it's monopoly. This prevents

competition; potential competitors cannot meet an unpublished

defacto standard, and therefore cannot compete; products developed

in this manner appear substandard to the public, which expects

behavior as per the ``standard'' set by the monopoly. Thus

competition is stifled and innovation outside of Microsoft limited

to those areas in which Microsoft either cannot or has yet to

leverage it's existing monopolies to enter.

The proposed settlement fails to: * Compensate any of those

affected, either directly or indirectly, by Microsoft's pattern of

illegal behavior. * Require Microsoft to either adhere to published

standards, or publish those features and behaviors that it has

established as defacto standards. * Prevent Microsoft from tying any

given new product to it's existing monopolies unbeknownst to the

general public, through the common practice of requiring Non

Disclosure Agreements before any information is exchanged or

contract negotiated. Therefore a company must risk it's very

existence under threat of lawsuits, in order to accuse Microsoft of

repeating it's illegal behavior. * Provide expedient, impartial

resolution of future examples of the same illegal behavior. A

``three strikes'' type clause may be appropriate, and I'll

note that this particular case is actually a second strike, having

been brought about by Microsoft's failing to abide by the Consent

Decree it agreed to over seven years ago. * Provide any current or

future competitors any assurance that they will be able to compete

on equal footing, thus raising the requirement to even begin to

compete. * Prevent Microsoft from holding equity in or substantial

contracts with any direct competitors. They currently hold equity in

Apple Computer, which is currently the only legitimate competitor

for desktop operating systems, and have a major development

agreement with Corel, makers of WordPerfect. This creates a

potential conflict of interest for those ``competitors'':

Apple Computer stopped shipping Netscape Navigator with it's

personal computers, instead shipping Microsoft's Internet Explorer

(which defeats Microsoft's argument that Internet Explorer is a part

of the Windows Operating System, and, since this was in exchange for

$150 million) constitutes illegal dumping); immediately upon

receiving from Microsoft a major influx of capital along with a

development contract, Corel stopped development of it's version of

the Linux Operating System, and the version of the WordPerfect suite

of ``office'' applications for the Linux Operating system.

This would appear to be anti-competitive.

Please reject the proposed settlement; many more appropriate

suggestions have been fielded for how to remedy the illegal behavior

exhibited by Microsoft.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Joel T. Osburn

MTC-00024665

From: Peter C Lott

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

Date: 1/25/02 2:21pm

Subject: USAGLott_Peter_1016--0115.doc

2700 S Sunland Drive

Tempe, AZ 85282-3387

January 24, 2002

Attorney General John Ashcroft

US Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Mr. Ashcroft:

As I read more about the recent developments in the Microsoft

settlement, I become more frustrated in the fact that it may be even

further delayed. By delaying the enforcement of this agreement, we

directly delay the advancement of our American technology industry.

As the rest of the global market moves on, America's technology

industry is forced to focus on litigation rather than innovation.

Not only has Microsoft agreed to make changes in licensing and

marketing, but has agreed to design future versions of Windows for

easier installation of non-Microsoft software. Beyond this,

Microsoft has agreed to be monitored by a committee in order to

ensure that they follow proper procedure. All of these concessions

are clearly a step toward a more unified technology industry. By

working together, we help our American technology industry maintain

its position of leadership in this highly competitive global market.

As we face this competitive market, we must be prepared for the many

changes involved in this industry. By being able to focus on

innovation, we can be prepared for these changes and stay on top of

the market. By enforcing this agreement, we will be able to utilize

it as a guideline for advancement within the market.

Sincerely,

Peter Lott

MTC-00024686

From: John Coble

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:23pm

Subject: Public Comment

This is a Public Comment on the proposed settlement among the

Justice Department, the Nine States and Microsoft Corporation. I am

also including comments about AOL in its recent filing: I have been

a user of Microsoft Windows and many other Microsoft Products for

many years. Definitively not because they are the only ones

available, but solely because they are the best. (And indeed I have

tried many others). No one using Microsoft Windows (any version) is

forced to use MSN Internet Browsers as every computer manufacturer

lists a wide range of other providers. As for many others including

the worst AOL you can go to any computing store and many other

stores and get a free CD to load in to your PC in a matter of

minutes and use their service. Just because Microsoft has started

including Internet Explorer as an integral part of Windows does not

force you into something that you do not want. You can indeed delete

their ICONS and use any other provider that you desire without any

degrade to the general functioning of Windows. I was with AOL and

used Netscape and found them to be rife with problems and forced

spam of every thing from porno to advertising of anything you could

name. I finally got off of AOL and went with QWest because they

offered a high speed connection (DSL). I continued to use Netscape

until I could no longer stand the errors and finally switched to MSN

Internet Explorer and could not be happier. Every Microsoft product

that I use is the best and at the best price.

Finally, I do believe that every one that appeared before the

courts against Microsoft have in some way been connected to other

manufactures or states. (Probably paid off). This case can be

settled quickly if the U.S. District Judge, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly

would issue an order that with any settlement there will be no money

involved. Each party will handle their own legal expenses and once

the Judge rules on the case, that is it. No further charges or

appeals will be accepted. And for any person or group testifying

against Microsoft they must be investigated to determine their ties

to other manufactures, states and now AOL. As a final step in the

settlement the Judge should ask that the nine states involved should

report back to the court within one year on their actions to stop

using Microsoft Products. This is a long dissertation; however, I am

fed up with my tax dollars being spent on this insurrection against

one of the best companies in the world by a bunch of money hungry

companies/states that could not succeed on their own.

John T. Coble

2647 98th Ave. NE

Clyde Hill, WA 98004

425 454-4632

MTC-00024688

From: Frank de Lange

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:22pm

Subject: On the Microsoft settlement

Dear sir/madam,

Even though I may not be a US citizen, I still want to add some

comments to the proposed settlement in the case Microsoft vs. DoJ. I

am a self-employed IT service architect, who has been employed by

several Dutch and international companies. Others have commented on

many aspects of the settlement. Much of the text seems reasonable. I

see two minor points which might need some improvement.

Point 1:

Under I.1. ``All terms, including royalties [...]

reasonable and non-discriminatory.'' I would like to refer you

to a discussion on RAND (Reasonable and non-Discriminatory)

licensing as has been proposed for the world wide web consortium

(The organization which sets standards for the world wide web).

http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/

WD_patent_policy_20010816/ Note especially

objections made by some of the w3c contributors. To wit: rand is not

non-discriminatory. It discriminates directly against Open Source

and Free Software projects. These projects simply cannot use or pay

for such RAND licensing due to their legal structure. The arguments

that could be made here are very similar to those stated in the w3c

discussion. Here are some arguments

[[Page 27519]]

of my own: Royalty Free (RF) Licensing has been proposed as an

alternative, and overcomes this weakness. Why are Free Software and

Open Source Software important? There are two arguments based on

reason, and one is based on simple demonstration: (1) The free

software operating system GNU/Linux is considered by many to be a

somewhat important competitor to Microsoft. It is distributed under

the GNU general public licence (GPL) which is a distribution

license. Allowing Microsoft to discriminate against such competitor

would not be fair. It could also hardly be called non-

discriminatory, of course.

(2) As far as I know, original implementations of RFC 791

(Internet Protocol) and RFC 793 (Transmission Control Protocol) were

released under the university of California's' ``Berkeley

Software Distribution'' License. This is a free software

license. These 2 protocols form the heart of the current day

Internet. The implementation was left Royalty Free, and hence all

parties adopted it. Also, since the original source was open, all

parties could learn from it, and the TCP/IP system was quickly

adopted worldwide. This is very important. references: IETF RFCs can

be obtained from many sources. Here is one on the world wide web.:

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/rfc/rfc791.txt http://

www.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/rfc/rfc793.txt

(3) Quite simply put: The Simple Mail Transfer Protocol(RFC821)

is royalty free, to the best of my knowledge. This protocol is used

to transmit E-mail across the Internet. If it were not for SMTP, and

if it were not for its royalty free status, I would not have been

able to send this message. A possible solution to the shortcoming in

I.1. (and similar problems with related points under I) would be to

allow for Royalty Free licensing of at very least the data

interchange formats used by Microsoft.

As an aside: Requiring Microsoft to submit their data formats

(such as word and excel) to the International Standards Organization

(ISO) might improve the situation further. Such standards

organizations argue that good standardization has demonstrably

improved economic gain, and stimulated competition between all

parties concerned. I think that even Microsoft might actually gain

from such an action in the long run. I see nothing wrong with this,

because such gain would result from fair competition. Reference:

www.iso.org

Point 2:

Under J it is said that Microsoft may not disclose information

about security systems, and may set almost any requirement when

sharing security information with a security vendor.

I am a hacker, not a `certified computing security

professional'. I do not feel the need to be certified by any

vendor, as these certifications usually are no more than a guarantee

of sbujectivity. Open knowledge of algorithms and methods is a

requirement for truly strong security. This seems reasonable to me.

After all, if one knows of a certain weakness, one can compensate

for it and prevent people from exploiting it.

If a hostile element was to be the only person to know a

weakness in a security system, then that person would certainly be

able to exploit that weakness. Further, security systems which are

put up for public review can quickly be assessed for potential

weaknesses, and these weaknesses can be repaired. No such process

can be used for systems which are kept secret. A second slight

problem which some people have brought up is that there might be a

weakness here. People might state ``security concerns'' as

an excuse to sidestep what they are required to do under I in some

situations. In fact this does not seem very hard to do from a

technical perspective.

In short, section J on the whole might have some weaknesses. It

might be a good idea to gain advice from one or more security

experts (such as perhaps a professor teaching about data encryption,

or people employed by a government security agency) to determine if

this is indeed the case.

Kind regards,

Frank de Lange

Moldau 27

8226MV Lelystad

The Netherlands

MTC-00024689

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:23pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I don't feel that the proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-

trust action adequately addresses the issue of monopoly. It lets the

monopoly remain. I feel that the best solution would be to break

Microsoft into at least 3 pieces, each with rights to the full

intellectual property of the existing company. The new companies

would then have to compete against each other. The disruption during

the breakup would also provide some time for alternative competition

to join the market or gain market share. I personally am an Apple

MacIntosh user, and I am continually frustrated by the lack of

``shelf space'' that retailers provide for non-Microsoft

products. I am also worried about the gradual creep of Microsoft

software becoming the only supported software on Apple systems. My

ISP, AT&T broadband, does not support Netscape as a browser or

email client. They only support Internet Explorer and Outlook

Express from Microsoft.

Thank you for your consideration,

Peter C. Damron

MTC-00024690

From: Lawrence F Povirk

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:24pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

8127 Brown Road

Richmond, VA 23235

January 25, 2002

To the United States Department of Justice:

Like many investors, I own, through various mutual funds,

thousands of dollars worth of Microsoft (MS) stock. Yet, lately I

find myself wishing MS would simply close down and vanish. Why?

Because I am also a computer user. I spend at least half my working

hours at the computer, and like most users, I have dealt with MS

products for years. The quality of those products has been variable,

but that has been true of most software, so I could not complain too

loudly. If I found one of their products genuinely dysfunctional, I

could dump it and choose a competing product, as I did several

times. Lately, however, I feel I am being increasingly coerced into

using MS products, as the alternatives have gradually disappeared.

As anyone familiar with the industry knows, this is not because MS

has come up with more innovative or more reliable software. Rather,

it is because they have been able to target any popular piece of

software they choose, use the cash flow from Windows to build a

functional duplicate of it from the ground up, bundle their copycat

version with Windows or sell it below cost, and drive their

competitor out of business. This is classic, textbook monopolist

behavior, and it is beginning to stifle the whole computer industry.

We need not belabor whether MS acted improperly. Their culpability

has already been established. What is at is issue is coming up with

an effective remedy, that will restore some degree of consumer

choice. It is not only companies harmed by MS's behavior, or

consumers frustrated by their lack of choice, but disinterested

industry analysts as well, who all agree that the settlement now

proposed will do almost nothing to alter MS's mode of business or to

bring competition back to the software market. There are, however,

remedies that might actually make some progress toward that end.

First and foremost, no one should have to pay for a MS product

that they do not want. I recently began shopping for a notebook

computer, and found it was virtually impossible to buy one from a

major manufacturer that was not preloaded with Windows. IBM and Dell

both used to offer models with Linux instead, but no longer.

Tellingly, both manufacturers took them off the market just when the

Justice Department gave up its only real leverage in the antitrust

case by removing the threat of a MS breakup.

This coercion of consumers to buy a product they do not want

(Windows) in order to get one that they do want (a computer) is

precisely what the antitrust laws were intended to prevent. Hence,

at a bare minimum, a simple mechanism should be set up such that

anyone can get a full refund for any piece of MS software that was

bundled with any piece of hardware that they purchased. To

circumvent MS's considerable skills in price manipulation, amount of

the refund should be set at the greater of the amount the

manufacturer paid MS for the software, or a fixed fraction, say 70%,

of the retail price of the software. Moreover, the price charged by

MS to manufacturers for preloaded software should be required to be

published and uniform, so that MS cannot reward manufacturers for

promoting MS's interests, or, more importantly, punish them for not

doing so. If a consumer wants to return only part of an

``integrated'' piece of software say, keep Windows but get

rid of Internet Explorer, they also should be able to do so, and get

a partial refund based on the approximate size of that part of the

software (i.e., number of lines of computer code) relative to the

whole. Obviously, MS itself cannot be trusted to handle the refund

[[Page 27520]]

process itself; that will have to be done by an independent entity

set up specifically for that purpose, and under court oversight. In

the past, MS has argued that, were this to be allowed, users would

return the software, and keep using it anyway, or use an illegal

copy. But with MS's new authentication/registration requirements,

this practice will become impossible, and their argument will become

moot--the one small benefit of an otherwise reprehensible

policy that may soon widen the ``digital divide'' into a

chasm.

Second, to help level the field in application software, MS

should be required to publish the specifications of its main file

formats such as .doc, .ppt and .xls. Currently, I am often forced to

use MS Word, a program I passionately hate, because coworkers send

me documents in MS Word (.doc) format. While competing word

processors have devoted considerable effort to creating filters to

import and export .doc files, those filters not very reliable,

partly if not primarily because the .doc format is secret and ever-

changing. Publishing the specifications would probably not solve all

interconversion problems, but it certainly would help. Furthermore,

MS should be required to maintain input filters of their own for the

next three competing applications (e.g., WordPerfect, StarOffice and

Applixware word processors), so that documents created on those

applications will open in Word, Powerpoint and Excel. Again, and

unfortunately, an independent entity will have to be set up to

monitor compliance. Even so, none of this even begins to address

what may be a much greater means of coercion in the future: MS's

apparent plans to make it more and more inconvenient for any Windows

user to use any internet services that compete with their own MSN

and Passport services. We are now getting only the first hints to

what those tactics will be, but they are clearly going to be

inextricably built into Windows, and virtually impossible for any

Windows user to avoid. Given their control of so much of the basic

operation of home and office computers, they really should be barred

from providing network services at all. Given that such a

restriction is unlikely, their behavior in this area will have to be

closely monitored as well, to ensure that they do not shut out

competitors entirely.

Of course, I realize that there are those who are perfectly

satisfied with the closed, controlled world of computing provided to

them by Microsoft. But 20 years ago, there were those who were

equally satisfied with AT&T's monopoly phone service, and were

dumbfounded at the government's effort to break it up. There were

even those who were satisfied with the state-controlled monopolies

of the Communist era. That doesn't mean they should have been

preserved. History has taught us over and over again that monopolies

are a stagnating, corrosive influence on any industry they control,

whether it's oil or software. In every case where they were broken

up, the result was a wave of innovation and expansion, often going

beyond the dreams of even the most enthusiastic trust-busters. I

would challenge you to name a single case where the forced

restoration of competition in an industry, resulted in worse

products being available to consumers. Despite their stability and

economies of scale, monopolies are, invariably, a bad deal for

consumers, entrepreneurs and society at large; a bad deal for

everyone but the monopolists themselves. Microsoft is no different.

A copy of this comment in PDF format with facsimile signature, is

attached.

Sincerely,

Lawrence F. Povirk

MTC-00024691

From: Robin Downie

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:25pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Attorney General John Ashcroft

US Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

The enclosed letter is for your consideration.

Thank you,

Robin Downic

2684 Elm Drive

Brier, WA 98036-8940

January21, 2002

Attorney General John Ashcroft

US Deparment 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. The issue has been

dragged out for over three years and it is time to put it to rest.

Microsoft and the industry need to move on.

Some critics say that Microsoft has gotten off easy. In fact,

the settlement is quite strict. Microsoft agreed to give computer

makers the freedom to install and promote any software that they see

fit. Microsoft has also agreed not to enter into any contract with

any computer maker that obligates the computer maker to exclusively

promote Microsoft software. In fact, Microsoft has agreed to terms

that extend well beyond the products and procedures that were

actually at issue in the suit. In order to move forward, Microsoft

has The settlement is fair and should be accepted. forward is to put

the case in the past. made many concessions. The only way to move

Sincerely,

Robin Downie 00024691--0002

MTC-00024691

From: Tony Magnuson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:25pm

Subject: anti-trust case

The settlement was presented in a way that showed Microsoft's

cost in settlement as inflated. The perception is one of Justice

serving special interests. This is in the face of the large cache of

capital Microsoft maintains which constitutes a tax break for the

company and its investors and inflates the value of its stock. A

decision by Justice should foster competition, increase shareholder

value overall, increase transparency, and send a message that

dissembling tactics are not acceptable, even by powerful

corporations. I believe the original proposal to break Microsoft

into discrete units would have accomplished this. Microsoft is not

the only company in the tech arena to be guilty of such tactics, but

it represents a clear starting point. This action should not finish

with a settlement like this that shows the federal government

partnering with Microsoft in wrongdoing. This action should be a

beginning of scrutiny of the standards of behavior for industry and

the nation as a whole. You will remember Enron.

I am a small business owner and investor in Northern California

and user of Microsoft products. I do not want a refund from the

company nor anything that would benefit the company nor even the

sector specifically. Such a settlement would validate legal bullying

and squabbling as a method of reducing competition. I would like to

see any settlement invested in the establishment of fairness and

transparency in industry as a whole.

sincerely,

David Magnuson

Moss Beach, California

MTC-00024693

From: John (038) Sandee Walker

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:27pm

Subject: Gates lawsuit

This is not about forcing people to buy browsers other than

Microsoft. This is about inferior products being pawned off on

unsuspecting consumers. The average computer owner has little or no

knowledge of how their computer operates--they shouldn't have

to it should be designed to work for them. Bill Gates puts out

inferior products before they are perfected. He has the money to

hipe his products. Unsuspecting consumers have to go through hell

using his inferior products. Hard working quality minded smaller

companies interested in coming out with superior products don't have

the funds or connections to get their products included in the sale

of a computer. The general public will benefit because small

businesses with superior products are benefiting because Bill Gates

has been called on the carpet for unscrupulous tactics. Please

realize Bill Gates is not interested in quality product. His ONLY

interest is quantity profits at any expense.

MTC-00024694

From: Rick Peterson

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

Date: 1/25/02 2:14pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Your Honor,

I have worked in Silicon Valley for 15 years and have personal

contact with many high-tech companies. There is a very common theme

and that is ``fear of Microsoft''. Microsoft has clearly

abused their monopoly. There are companies that never get funded

because they predict that Microsoft will not allow the competition.

This is unhealthy for our economy! We need the best technology and

the best software to have a chance to make it to the marketplace and

to compete fairly there. This won't happen if Microsoft is somehow

threatened by it. Microsoft has demonstrated its

[[Page 27521]]

complete disregard for the law. They do not operate with honor or

fairness in the marketplace. Please do what is right and needs to

happen. Please break up this ruthless monopoly and force Microsoft

to play by the rules of commerce, that govern our great country.

Sincerely,

Rick Peterson, IDSA

Vice President

Studio RED

Tel:650.324.2244 x231

Cel:650.722.2782

MTC-00024695

From: Shulamit

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:24pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Under the Tunney Act, the court must consider public comments

prior to deciding on the Microsoft proposed settlement. I am writing

to urge you to reject the proposed settlement offer. It does nothing

to solve the problem of Microsoft's monopoly and in fact will

increase Microsoft's stranglehold in the education market, further

adding to the problem.

MTC-00024696

From: JT Thomas

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:27pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

In the words of Robert X. Cringely (from pbs.org): Section

III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against not-for-

profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not describe

nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols

affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don't

meet Microsoft's criteria as a business: ``...(c) meets

reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for

certifying the authenticity and viability of its business,

...'' This loophole (as well as others, but I find this the

most offensive) are unacceptable. Please reconsider the settlement

decision.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

MTC-00024697

From: jeff

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hello Renata--

As a resident of Washington you would think I would be favoring

Microsoft in this action. That is not the case. The current

settlement actually has the effect of further strengthening

Microsoft's monopoly. Make them give the school cash and let the

schools decide on what equipment and software to purchase.

Apple Computer has traditionally been very strong in the

education market and this is simply a backdoor play for Microsoft to

gain market share.

Thank you for letting me voice my opinion.

Jeff Chin

MTC-00024698

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:28pm

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,

Jamie Pence

PO Box 752

Clinton, MO 64735-0752

MTC-00024699

From: Landrus, Kurt

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:30pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think this settlement is an extremely bad solution. This is

not a punishment form Microsoft monoplistic prcatices, it merely

enables them to expand into another niche market (education) they do

not yet already own.

They have plenty of cash, the settlement should require them to

put up cash not donations of MS software.

Please stop this insaity from being approved.

Kurt Landrus

MTC-00024700

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:30pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs:

The settlement with Microsoft seems fair and equitable and

should be settled. It would seem that at this point in history the

people would be better served utilizing government resources in more

productive ways.

Sincerely yours,

Claudia Pletter

MTC-00024701

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:31pm

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,

J. NINER

149 Topaz

Kissee Mills, MO 65680

MTC-00024702

From: Connie Wickland

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:32pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

9928 181st Avenue NE

Redmond, WA 98052

January 25, 2002

Attorney General John Ashcroft

US Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530

Dear Mr. Ashcroft:

I am writing to express my opinions regarding the Microsoft

antitrust case. I believe that your office reached a fair and

reasonable settlement that should allow the industry to return its

focus to innovation, rather than litigation.

Microsoft has already agreed to concessions that have set new

antitrust precedent. The competition will be allowed to use Windows

as a springboard to launch their products that compete directly to

those programs already included within Windows. Also, Microsoft will

disclose, for the competition, various interfaces in its Windows

operating system. Most importantly, Microsoft has agreed not to

retaliate against any software or hardware developers that develop

or promote software that competes with Windows or that runs on

software that competes with Windows.

Microsoft has made these concessions because it realizes that

settling the case sooner is better than later. If these concessions

were asked from more traditional and understandable industries, I

think they would be denounced as going against the principles of

competition and free enterprise. Imagine if every Coke can had to

have a sample of Pepsi inside, or if McDonalds had to offer Burger

King's Whopper to those that wanted it. Would that be reasonable?

This settlement will allow the consumers, the industry, and the

economy to move forward. I hope when reviewing this case it will be

judged it by its merits, and not by the everlasting chain of

competitors'' demands.

Sincerely,

Connie WicklandGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download

:

http://explorer.msn.com

MTC-00024703

From: Jay W. Luther

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 27522]]

Ms. Renata B. Hesse

Antitrust Division

U.S. Department of Justice

601 D Street NW

Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20530-0001

United States v. Microsoft has been a long and complicated case,

and a detailed critique of the proposed settlement it has spawned is

best left to those who have considered the implications of every

line. As one who has represented software concerns, and has some

sense of the industry, I would simply offer my conclusion: It is

highly likely that the proposed settlement will be completely

ineffectual. Put another way, it appears to me that it will have no

impact on the industry as the industry currently exists, though some

of its provisions might have been modestly helpful in preserving

browser completion during the Netscape-Explorer fight.

Particularly egregious here is the carve-out of the free

software movement from essentially all of the proposed judgment's

benefit. In operating systems, this is the only competition to MS

that is significant today, and if there is to be any benefit to

consumers from the judgment, open source representatives must have

full, complete, and prompt access to all significant

interoperability data for Windows, MS middleware and MS Office, with

access being controlled by disinterested third parties. This is also

true for all competitive office applications. After all these years,

it's time to bring to a close the famous axiom, ``DOS's

[Windows's] not done ``til Lotus [WordPerfect, Netscape, etc.]

won't run.''

Jay W. Luther

Law Offices of Jay W. Luther

Voice: 415-456-6197

Fax: 415-456-8597 00024703--0002 01/29/2002

10:08

MTC-00024705

From: Thomas M. Ferlauto

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:36pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I oppose the settlement. Microsoft has proven to be a

monopolistic predator. From Netscape to Java to countless other

examples, Microsoft has used its dominate position in the PC desktop

OS market to bully competitors or even drive them out of business.

The justice department, at the tax payer's great expense, prevailed

and demonstrated Microsoft to have violated the law. This settlement

renders all of that effort futile and teaches Microsoft the valuable

lesson that you can violate the law, but if you fight like hell in

the courts you can get away with it. This will only encourage

Microsoft to continue its illegal behavior (to this day, Microsoft

contends they did nothing wrong). To teach Microsoft a lesson, to

deter future criminal conduct, to make Microsoft a good corporate

citizen, to foster free competition, and to benefit the consumers,

it is imperative that the settlement be rejected and more drastic

remedies be sought.

The problem is Microsoft's dominance in the OS market. This

gives Microsoft the power, which they are too at ease with using, to

dominate every other aspect of computing. Control over the OS leads

to control over office suites, which leads to control over web

browsers, which leads to control over internet access and content.

This domino effect will never end until Microsoft's OS division is

made a separate company from its software and internet divisions.

That is the remedy that I suggest.

MTC-00024706

From: C.D. Larson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 1/25/02 2:36pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear DOJ Team:

First, thank you for all you've been busy doing on the terrorism

front. I deeply appreciate and support what your team has been

doing--both publicly and behind the scenes--to keep all of

us safe. I'm writing regarding the Microsoft Settlement. I've been

in the computer industry for some number of years and have seen how

Microsoft operates, and I'm disappointed by the proposed settlement.

It stifles competition and the economy, and is a real disaster for

our industry. Once upon a time, there were many companies who made

workable word-processing programs. Innovation

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.