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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3AX02-80503

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Notice
- **Published:** May 3, 2002
- **Citation:** 67 FR 27484

## Text

[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.

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3AX02-80503. Public record. Not legal advice.